Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The first case was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The disease has since spread worldwide, leading to an ongoing pandemic.

Symptoms of COVID-19 are variable, but often include fever, cough, fatigue, breathing difficulties, and loss of smell and taste. Symptoms begin one to fourteen days after exposure to the virus. Of those people who develop noticeable symptoms, most (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia), while 14% develop severe symptoms (dyspnea, hypoxia, or more than 50% lung involvement on imaging), and 5% suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction).[6] At least a third of the people who are infected with the virus remain asymptomatic and do not develop noticeable symptoms at any point in time, but they still can spread the disease.[7][8] Some people continue to experience a range of effects—known as long COVID—for months after recovery, and damage to organs has been observed.[9] Multi-year studies are underway to further investigate the long-term effects of the disease.[9]

The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads mainly when an infected person is in close contact[a] with another person.[13][14] Small droplets and aerosols containing the virus can spread from an infected person's nose and mouth as they breathe, cough, sneeze, sing, or speak. Other people are infected if the virus gets into their mouth, nose or eyes. The virus may also spread via contaminated surfaces, although this is not thought to be the main route of transmission.[14] The exact route of transmission is rarely proven conclusively,[15] but infection mainly happens when people are near each other for long enough. People who are infected can transmit the virus to another person up to two days before they themselves show symptoms, as can people who do not experience symptoms. People remain infectious for up to ten days after the onset of symptoms in moderate cases and up to 20 days in severe cases.[16] Several testing methods have been developed to diagnose the disease. The standard diagnostic method is by detection of the virus' nucleic acid by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), transcription-mediated amplification (TMA), or by loop-mediated isothermal amplification from a nasopharyngeal swab.

Preventive measures include physical or social distancing, quarantining, ventilation of indoor spaces, covering coughs and sneezes, hand washing, and keeping unwashed hands away from the face. The use of face masks or coverings has been recommended in public settings to minimise the risk of transmissions. Several vaccines have been developed and several countries have initiated mass vaccination campaigns.

Although work is underway to develop drugs that inhibit the virus, the primary treatment is currently symptomatic. Management involves the treatment of symptoms, supportive care, isolation, and experimental measures. a deadly virus that has killed millions of peopole


Contents 1 Signs and symptoms 2 Cause 2.1 Transmission 2.2 Virology 2.3 SARS-CoV-2 variants 3 Pathophysiology 3.1 Immunopathology 3.2 Viral and host factors 3.3 Host cytokine response 4 Diagnosis 4.1 Viral testing 4.2 Imaging 4.3 Coding 4.4 Pathology 5 Prevention 5.1 Vaccine 5.2 Social distancing 5.3 Self-isolation 5.4 Face masks and respiratory hygiene 5.5 Hand-washing and hygiene 5.6 Surface cleaning 5.7 Ventilation and air filtration 5.8 Healthy diet and lifestyle 6 Treatment 7 Prognosis 7.1 Complications 7.2 Longer-term effects 7.3 Immunity 8 Mortality 8.1 Infection fatality rate 8.2 Sex differences 8.3 Ethnic differences 8.4 Comorbidities 9 Name 10 History 11 Misinformation 12 Other animals 13 Research 13.1 Transmission and prevention research 13.2 Treatment-related research 14 See also 15 Notes 16 References 17 Further reading 18 External links 18.1 Health agencies 18.2 Directories 18.3 Medical journals 18.4 Treatment guidelines 100.4.57.161 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2021 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cruise ship data table

I think that the cruise ship data table in Coronavirus disease 2019 § Sex differences has outlived its usefullness in this article. I'd propose moving it to a new section "Early epidemiologic data' in COVID-19 pandemic on cruise ships which could contain a paragraph explaining that the cruise ships provided extremely valuable data on COVID-19 outcomes in the early days of the outbreak. Thoughts? - Wikmoz (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikmoz, that sounds good to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Patients"

The term is used 57 times in the article, which makes it sound like it is written for clinicians. Can we cull some of them? Graham Beards (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe most of the occurrences (about 35 of them) are in the titles of articles/sources. However, I agree the number should be reduced. I made changes leaving instances referring to people receiving treatment in hospitals etc. MartinezMD (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Graham Beards, the term is used excessively. I appreciate MartinezMD's edits though I believe more can be done. Some other words could be "subjects" or "convalescent" though they don't have the same effect as patient. Thoughts? Jurisdicta (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe person/people. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Disinfection of surfaces is key to control"

Hey there, article says "Disinfection of surfaces is key to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2" , but where are the sources? Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, this section seems to need some work. Particularly this source seems to need some wording correctly placing it as a dissenting opinion. I think the CDC and WHO guidelines should suitably place the risk from surfaces as lower than through the air, and the sources about actual recommendations should stay. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, "If a person touches the dirty surface, the virus may be able to enter the body and cause infection" - and what the source says? This is plain wrong, the virus can't "enter the body" through the skin, it enters through epithelium. All these "can survive for a week" studies are summarized with criticism in this study [1] - I am not disputing the findings of these studies, only the applicability to real life. For example, in the studies that used a sample of 107, 106, and 104 particles of infectious virus on a small surface area,1, 2, 3 these concentrations are a lot higher than those in droplets in real-life situations, with the amount of virus actually deposited on surfaces likely to be several orders of magnitude smaller.5 Hence, a real-life situation is better represented in the work of Dowell and colleagues7 in which no viable virus was found on fomites. - the article chapter must adequately indicate this. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixing this with the CDC "How COVID-19 Spreads" page, indicating it's touching the surface followed by eyes, mouth, or nose. It's also worth noting that epithelium is the skin. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy about maximal duration of the COVID-19 incubation period

Recently me and Gtoffoletto started a discussion at his talk page about a minor editing of the Wikipedia Symptoms of COVID-19 article I performed and the reference to the scientific journal supporting this editing. Gtoffoletto undid my minor editing, while I propose substantial arguments about its appropriateness. Over several rounds of the discussion it become clear we have very opposite points of view on this topic. I think we need the independent judgement to define whether my minor editing should be returned back, and make the current section at this talk page to know the opinion of other Wikipedia editors. Because the initial part of the Symptoms of COVID-19 article includes in the Coronavirus disease 2019 page, I would like to ask also the editors of this page to resolve our discussion

I proposed this editing based on several reasons:

  • the importance of the fact that in 5-10% of SARS-CoV2 infected persons the onset of symptoms (i.e. duration of the incubation period) could occur after the 14 days. This has important implications to the public health and individual decision making;
  • the manuscript indicating this has been published in the respectable scientific journal "Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease" with the impact factor 4.6;
  • the manuscript has been peer-reviewed that guarantee its quality and independent evaluation by other scientists;
  • the manuscript represents the findings from six different studies;
  • in the emerging field of information about COVID is not always possible to wait many years until more evidence will be summarized in a meta-analysis or a guideline. And sometimes important and reliable information about such emerging topics could be inserted in the Wikipedia based on other publication types listed in the WP:MEDASSESS hierarchy of medical data sources.

The subsequent arguments of Gtoffoletto and other details could be found at the talk page Borisbikbov (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Complications and Longer-term Effects Sections

Symptoms of COVID-19 contains two sections that overlap with this topic:

If there are no objections, I'll merge these into the main disease topic and transclude back to to the symptoms topic. If they grow in size, it may be better to just briefly summarize these in the symptoms topic rather than fully transclude. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey Wikmoz. In general, I would suggest that the parent article have the excerpt template and the child article have the actual text. This is a format I've found effective with transcluding child article leads into parent article sections. But I don't feel strongly about it, just a suggestion :-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. In this case though, I think these sections are more tangential to symptoms rather than subordinate. I ran with the merge into the parent topic. Can flip the transclusion if necessary. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge Symptoms of COVID-19 into 'Signs and symptoms'

Thank you all for the quick feedback! Closing as there are plans to expand the breakout topic and it does not appear that we're heading for a clear consensus. Wikmoz (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Symptoms of COVID-19 was split out from Coronavirus disease 2019 last October. Prior discussion of content duplication resolved to remove duplicate content from COVID-19 pandemic but keep the breakout symptoms article. The thinking at the time was that the subject deserved a level of detail that couldn't be provided in this topic.

After several months, a substantial content expansion has not come to pass. The first 4 paragraphs are already transcluded here and sections on complications and long-term effects are duplicated here. So there are just 9 brief original paragraphs, which can be easily merged with H4 headings into this topic. Given the short amount of text and content overlap, my thinking is that a merger would make this critical information more discoverable to readers.

However, I can see valid arguments for and against merging so wanted to get general thoughts before kicking off an RfC. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tried a rough, temporary mockup of what the revised section would look like (no edits). I think the top 6 paragraphs can be reduced to 4 with some light content shuffling. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Graham Beards, MartinezMD, Tenryuu, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), and Sdkb: for thoughts. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: As I feared, research in this are is not going very fast... we still know very little about this crucial topic. I would merge and then separate if it grows out of control (unlikely at the moment). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - as long as we don't add too much volume into the parent article. It's pretty cumbersome. MartinezMD (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Looking at the mockup it doesn't look like it'll take up too much room, and it'd save a click from readers. Of those first 6 paragraphs, I can see ¶5 being merged into ¶2, and ¶6 with ¶3. Perhaps there should be an H3 heading (Symptoms?) before the H4s? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll make expanding this my next project. This topic is high-impact and there's a lot to be written about it. I'm surprised there just hasn't been any interest in expanding this type of article; what I'd really like the rest of you to support is helping me expand this article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The main article has 60K of prose and so is too large. COVID has an especially long list of possible symptoms and some of them, such as long COVID, are quite controversial or mysterious. For example, I talked to someone yesterday who had lots of classic symptoms but has tested negative four times and they are quite anxious about this. Checking, I find that this is not an unusual experience. Merger would tend to stifle such complex aspects while flip-flopping will tend to annoy and confuse both editors and readers. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Parent article is very long, so I like the idea of WP:SUMMARY (spun out child articles). Also, sounds like John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) wants to expand the child article, which is awesome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you all for the quick feedback! In light of the above comments, I will not set up a merge RfC. Edit: It looks like symptoms was tagged for merging. It doesn't look like we'll find consensus here but will leave the thread open. - Wikmoz (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge The mockup looks great. This should be highlighted in the main article rather than split off, only to be a redundant duplicate. If length is a concern (60K is not so much for a such a major topic at the moment), "Surface cleaning" could be moved into Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19, for example, and "Research" has lots of details that could be moved into their respective subarticle. Prose transclusion should be avoided since that's just more duplication, defeating the point of a subarticle. Reywas92Talk 20:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

adding vaccine to the prevention list

we can add a vaccine to the prevention list in the box

I have added this to the infobox. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, everyone. I chanced upon a most interesting meta-research paper published this month about Wikipedia's coverage of Covid-19 related issues. Here's the link. -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The Gnome, very interesting paper, thanks for sharing. The paper mentions that Wikipedia COVID articles use high quality popular press and scientific sources. It also mentions that despite the high number of COVID preprints in existence, our articles use very few preprints. RexxS and others might be interested to know that our efforts to exclude preprints are being noticed outside Wikipedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: rename this page to COVID

There's no need for a separate unofficial move discussion when there's already one going on above, and it confuses matters. Feel free to propose alternative suggestions there.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Early on, this disease was commonly called “coronavirus,” though coronaviruses are simply a type of virus. Then it started to be called COVID-19. Now everyone simply calls it “COVID.” It is called COVID by the mainstream media, COVID by politicians, COVID by businesses. Signs from the road showing where you can get testing and vaccines simply say COVID. Doctors are calling it COVID. Everywhere you look, it’s called COVID. Basically, COVID has become the word in the English language for this disease.

I think it’s finally time we rename this article to COVID, with the discussion being whether to use all caps or not. PatriceMO1 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That one is about calling it COVID-19. Nowadays, everyone is just calling it COVID. PatriceMO1 (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • While the general public is leaving out the -19 with some frequency, I have seen absolutely no scholarly articles that leave out the -19, and the majority of news sources include it universally (except in quotes, for obvious reasons). That basically trump any "vernacular" usage - not to mention that while we all "know" it, I doubt there is a reliable source which says "people are calling it COVID and leaving out the -19".. which would be required to even consider that usage in determining the common name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • And, most importantly, anyone searching Wikipedia for "COVID" will come across a page titled "COVID-19" with no other options. So there's no reason to leave off the "-19". Bakkster Man (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Every source, and that includes may unreliable ones, uses the full term. We go by sources. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 March 2021

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: speedy close as asked Anthony Appleyard (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19 – Per discussion result at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019#Requested move 1 March 2021. JE98 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead talk about vulnerability of elderly?

The higher morbidity rates among the elderly seems to be a very important fact about the pandemic, but it's not currently mentioned in the lead. Should we add it? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I support that, something similar to the third paragraph at Spanish flu would be good to have. Vpab15 (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I would agree that a mention up top, probably in the second paragraph, makes sense. I'd suggest there's two notable mortality trends. 1) Mortality increases with age, without an increase in child mortality (as seen with most influenzas). 2) Increased mortality among Black, Hispanic, and Asian ethnicities. The latter might need a bit of clearing up with good universal sources (beyond just US and UK), but if we're noting exceptional mortality trends that should really be included. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Bakkster Man, the increased mortality among different ethnicities is because of demographic factors about those ethnicities, not the ethnicities themselves. And the increased mortality doesn't represent a global perspective. We could spend a sentence describing co-morbidities like obesity and others, perhaps. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Sdkb, I agree that this content is more important to get right in the Coronavirus disease 2019#Ethnic differences section first. I believe there are good sources I can find that indicate it is indeed related directly to ethnicity (potentially through Vitamin D deficiency, more common among darker skin tones), in addition to any other socioeconomic risk factors. (See [2] and [3] in lifestyle section for examples). I'll try and track that down to improve that section first, then we can see about the lede. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Vitamin D linked to ethnicity AND covid sounds WP:EXTRAORDINARY to me, and falls into a common pattern of the popular press and/or single studies linking things to vitamins for a sensational headline. We should be careful to research that one thoroughly and only use top quality sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, and it's probably better to point to the link to Vitamin D deficiency (Healthy diet and lifestyle section) and perhaps the links to risk factors potentially being more or less prevalent among groups in the Ethnic differences section. Probably neither need to be in the lede, but I believe there's at least a plurality of primary studies which point this way. As I said, I'm going to dig for MEDRS sources suggesting this link before putting anything into the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Could I get you (Novem Linguae and Sdkb) to take a critical eye to these articles. I'm struggling a bit to figure out which might be true reviews and have strong enough conclusions to include, and would rather get holes poked in them now before I try to write neutral wording for them.
I appreciate the assistance. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not someone with medical expertise, so I try to avoid making judgements like that since I lack the baseline knowledge to be able to evaluate what constitutes a reliable medical source. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Bakkster Man, that first source looks good. Review in a MEDLINE indexed journal. I wouldn't read or use the other two. Some of the Frontiers journals publish some really fringey stuff. And editorials are not peer reviewed. The review makes sense too. Stay at home orders leads to less sunlight leads to Vitamin D deficiency. A fair enough conclusion. Oh, and I don't think this is quite lead worthy, but would be fine as a sentence in an article somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, just wanted the sanity check that my initial impression was reasonable. I agree, this will probably go in the Vitamin D and mortality sections, rather than the lede (since much of the Vitamin D info is pretty broad information about a variety of infectious diseases, unlike the age mortality which is a distinguishing factor from flu/SARS/etc). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2021

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: The consensus is to move based on arguments in the discussion. In particular, Bakkster Man, who changed his vote, emphasizes that the shorter name is used in the high-quality sources considered for determining WP:MEDTITLE. From opposers, there doesn't seem to be any argument that COVID-19 is the common name. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19 – Per WP:COMMONNAME, abbreviated name much more common in google scholar: 3.6 million vs 196k ([6] [7]). Per WP:CONSISTENT, to be consistent with all other covid-related articles. Almost all articles in Template:COVID-19_pandemic have "COVID-19" in the title. Vpab15 (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose per current consensus item (see talk page header) Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article. COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. Also per previous move discussion 1, and move discussion 2. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Updating to Support on further review of MOS guidelines. Per WP:MEDTITLE: The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or an historical eponym that has been superseded. This led to the initial change from 2019-nCoV, (superceded eponym). The WHO web pages seem to have nearly exclusively transitioned to "COVID-19", and when extended they tend to write "Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)", although the CDC does tend to define the full "Coronavirus Disease 2019" before using COVID-19 for the rest of their writings. A significant number of our journal articles are also using the COVID-19 moniker primarily, often only defining it in the abstract once. The thing that really changed my mind is that the ICD-10 codes use COVID-19 alone: {tq|U07.1 – COVID-19, virus identified (lab confirmed)}}. I'd suggest this all means we also meet the requirements of WP:TITLEFORMAT for using an acronym Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. PBS, NATO, Laser). So I'm in favor of making the article title COVID-19 and having the redirect from Coronavirus Disease 2019. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has been proposed and rejected several times. I think it's better to keep the full name as the title rather than the more common acronym the same way many other of our articles are, such as Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Rreagan007 (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Or we could move it to the short version; the same way many other articles, like HIV/AIDS, NASA or CT scan. Vpab15 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the difference here is that "coronavirus" is still commonly used to refer to this disease, so having it in the title is helpful. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Everyone knows what "Coronavirus" is while many people may not even know NASSA is an acronym since its unlike BBC its not pronounced as one however the the 2019 virus its commonly pronounced as a normal word like NASSA so I'm not sure either way. I opposed the previous RM but I realized that that was largely based on Coronavirus in general not this one specifically. This one specifically is usually called either "Covid 19" or "Coronavirus" but "Coronavirus disease 2019" does seem to not be used much. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutral per Bakkster Man. While I see that policy is to use the most commonly-used name for the title, I personally prefer seeing full names as titles if they can be expressed in about three words, and aren't esoteric like some of the Variant of Concern articles that we have. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: Thanks for the notification. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. WP:COMMONNAME. 4.6 billion results on google, vs 12 million. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having all COVID-19 pandemic-related articles named "COVID-19" doesn't mean that it should be named as COVID-19. We should be aware consensus on talk page that full name of the diseases used in this article while others used acronym titles. 36.77.95.123 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, the last RM closed as no consensus. In any case, it is not good enough to say we shouldn't move because of consensus. There has to be some reason supported by policy. Vpab15 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The current title implies that this only covers 2019 when COVID 19 also has existed in 2020 and 2021 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Does it really, though? By this logic, wouldn't the "19" in "COVID-19" similarly imply the year 2019, making both names equally unsuitable? Instead, this is just one of the first diseases to use the new WHO naming guidelines, which uses the date of discovery to distinguish diseases, in order to avoid fear inducing (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and geographic (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) names. It will feel more natural as it becomes more common. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'll quote the line from the article titles guideline here that I feel most fits this discussion: Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. While at the beginning and even through much of last year the disease was referred to by "coronavirus disease 2019" in the reliable sources (which in this case, given that it is a medical article, are WP:MEDRS), filtering PubMed for articles published this year shows that more and more articles are using COVID-19 as a term, not an acronym (as evidenced by not defining it within the first paragraph or first use or two of the term, even if it is defined later in the article, not including the abstract). I'll link a few here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - all within the first 30 results. Now, it is a valid statement to say that's barely 30% of the top results for COVID-19 in PubMed, yes, but that shows that the name has become common enough to use as a term, not as an acronym that requires further definition. Numerical counting is not useful here, because the guideline isn't "pick the most common name always" - it's that a common name should be used over an uncommon one, even if that uncommon one meets all the criteria and the common one doesn't meet all of them. Note that our guideline also implies that we should favor a less common, but more recognizable name over a more common, but less recognizable name - as in the case with another medical-related article - aspirin, which based on a simple counting of PubMed results should be named acetylsalicylic acid (71k results for the long name, 68k for aspirin). While I certainly support some level of "officiality" in Wikipedia, in that the fact a name/term/phrase is "official" should weigh into the discussion, that does not mean that it is the end of the discussion. Another precedent is the plethora of organizations/groups that are referred to by their acronyms, even if reliable sources define/spell them out somewhat frequently - see FIFA, FIBA, euro zone, etc. Now, to play devil's advocate, there are also a lot of examples of things not named with acronyms on Wikipedia because of their "official name" also, but my opinion is that the arguments for COVID-19 being the title here now slightly outweigh the arguments against. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This will inevitably happen sooner or later, as perennial move requests often do. When the bulk of the population has a common name in mind for a thing, those who see uncommon usage in an article title will be inclined to propose that the article be retitled. This will keep happening for as long as new editors read articles, and sooner or later it will stick, so it might as well be now. BD2412 T 04:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It appears that more and more sources are using COVID-19 as a term, rather than an acronym, therefore, I think it should be moved over. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 06:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as WP:COMMONNAME. —El Millo (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Long overdue. Like NASA and UNICEF, this is an acronym where the long form is largely unknown and rarely used. Thus common name and recognizability dictate that we should use it as our title. The only concern I can think of is that many readers may be seeking the more-viewed COVID-19 pandemic article rather than this one, but I guess a hatnote can continue to deal with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support WP:COMMANNAME, I've never heard people calling it "CORONaViRus DIsEASE 2019" 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. COVID-19 has been the common name for the better part of the last year at this point. -- Calidum 17:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mostly Support I have seen more people reference the disease as COVID-19 as opposed to coronavirus disease (or coronavirus disease 2019). I agree with the supporting points and some points from the Opposing side, for example: User "Berchanhimez"'s points. The current name is fine, we will see what happens. NinHawk8940 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rreagan007 and others. The current name is fine as-is, and is the official one anyway. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    JackFromReedsburg, while the "official" status should factor in, it does not mean that it overrides consideration of the five characteristics of desirable titles. I'll note that WP:OFFICIALNAMESONLY is a redlink for a reason, and WP:OFFICIALNAME links to a page that basically says the opposite of that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. There a many pages on Wikipedia, such as the chronologies which track the progression of the pandemic, that use the COVID-19 'common name' almost exclusively. They particularly make use of COVID-19 as a way of describing the number of cases and fatalities in the daily statistical reports. Examples are: COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019. SpookiePuppy (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The only reason other articles usually refer to it by its initialism rather than as "coronavirus disease 2019" is because their titles would then be unwieldy. That's not the case here, so I don't see a reason to change it. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has been discussed many times and I see no reason to change the previous consensus reported here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Current_consensus Nothing has changed. WP:MEDTITLE states The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name. This is a medical article and has specific medical rules that apply. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Consensus can change. COVID-19 is more commonly used than the long name in medical sources, which makes it "the scientific or recognised medical name". Vpab15 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Gtoffoletto, on my second look, I actually strongly disagree that "Nothing has changed". In the previous consensus discussion the WHO pages cited by both yourself and Doc James[8] no longer refer commonly to "Coronavirus Disease 2019". Across the two pages, there's only one reference to that term, from a report published February 2020. In the official WHO page you lined to - Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it - it now refers either to "coronavirus disease", "COVID-19", or the two together as "coronavirus disease (COVID-19)". So the official WHO naming guidelines have changed, and no longer list "coronavirus disease 2019" as the official name of the disease. If that was good enough reason to name the page last time, it's good enough reason to rename it now. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Very, very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "COVID-19" is indeed a shorter, correct term for the disease named "Coronavirus Disease 2019". But "Coronavirus Disease 2019" is its "complete" name in the same way we have both "SARS" and "MERS", and we keep referring to them as "Severe acute respiratory syndrome" and "Middle East respiratory syndrome". Why are we repeatedly having these discussions about renaming COVID-19-related pages? These should first be named according their scientific, medical names, not unlike articles for other diseases; if the scientific community is then lacking a name or term for something, then it would make sense using the name used by the press and/or by informed commentators. Many informed people also commonly refer (in speech and in written form) to the disease as "COVID", as "Covid" and simply as "coronavirus"; even if the colloquial variants of the name are common, it doesn't mean they are correct and/or should be preferred. ACLNM (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: No strong opinion either way but with respect to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, there's definitely been a substantial shift (Google Trends) since last year in favor the acronym. Additionally, it looks like the acronym returns 5x more papers in PubMed. Major publishers (general and medical) like NYT, WSJ, STAT, Nature, NEJM and BMJ certainly favor the acronym in most articles. Some agencies like CDC and ECDC seem to give top billing to the acronym. Others like FDA and WHO give equal weight to both but go all in on the acronym on sub-pages. So this would seem to satisfy both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MEDTITLE. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Coronavirus disease 2019 is not recognizable, COVID-19 is. Methyllithium (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is basically a repeat of Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019/Archive_14#Requested_move_16_September_2020 and nothing has fundamentally changed since. Some1 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The examples given there include "Polio (not: poliomyelitis)", so this seems consistent with prior decisions. MrSeabody (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Starzoner (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support These days it's by far the WP:COMMONNAME.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this discussion was previously closed as Moved but the comment indicated a vote count rather than weighing the arguments fairly. Even though their decision was probably correct, this discussion was a little contentious and arguments should be given due weight. Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The main argument against "nothing has changed" has been addressed. I made the same argument and changed my vote after it was pointed out that even the WHO changed their stance. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, this sounds like a better closing statement, the previous one which simply stated there were more arguments for than against. Polyamorph (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think there's good policy to support either name being acceptable in the article title. The question for consensus is which is preferred, and I don't see much policy argument for why the original official name should take precedence over a current common (and also officially used) name that's an unambiguous acronym. I think MrSeabody pointing out the polio example in WP:COMMONNAME is probably the clearest, most concise policy argument. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update consensus template

Template:Current COVID-19 Project Consensus should probably be updated to reflect the most recent RM. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. A bit rough, so I welcome feedback. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Should Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 renamed as SARS-CoV-2

Because "Coronavirus disease 2019" was renamed to "COVID-19", should Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 be renamed to SARS-CoV-2 because many more source are refer the virus as just the acronym rather than full. If so, can i requesting page move for SARS-CoV-2? 36.77.65.74 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that. The name is quite long. This idea should probably be posted at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 though, rather than here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Alternative name Coronavirus disease 2019

The alternative name has been removed from the first sentence and infobox ([9]). Do we need any change to the intro and infobox after the move request? Vpab15 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I first thought it may be a good idea to find a precedent or example to look at... but we are in uncharted territory on Wikipedia as far as I can see. This could be because this is the only disease where an acronym has more than overtaken the full name, or because there's only one really good example I can find... and even that example isn't ideal because it's really a spectrum/multiple things, not one disease. That example is HIV/AIDS and it doesn't include the full name in the infobox header at all, and only includes the full name for HIV lower down, not AIDS at all. SIDS isn't at the acronym as a title for disambiguation reasons, so it can't really provide insight as to precedent/examples here. Same with ARDS, AKI, PJP (more common acronym PCP but still), etc. MERS, SARS, and DRESS are not at their acronym titles, which I feel is likely due to disambiguation reasons but can't be certain as it's also potentially a specific naming issue which is different from this article.
Thus, I feel we have to chart our own path here - and I recommend the following: Change the lead sentence to begin with "COVID-19 (full name Coronavirus disease 2019) ...", and do not bold the full name (yes, it's a redirect, but there is explicitly no requirement to bold alternate titles and I feel it should be avoided when it's merely expansion of an acronym) in the parentheses. I also feel that the infobox should mention "coronavirus disease 2019", but it should not be in the header or above the image - but this is something I feel much more weakly about and am open to other suggestions on this topic. I think that User:Vpab15 is in the right reverting to the "status quo" pending discussion here, as any alterations, reorganizations, or (un)bolding is not so urgent as to require immediate editing and certainly is not worth edit warring over (not that Vpab15 is at all edit warring, but I encourage other editors to leave it be until this discussion has some semblance of agreement as to what should be done). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't change anything. I agree with your reversion. Just like AIDS/HIV, Polio, NASA, etc, the full name is used in the first sentence followed by the abbreviated form in parenthesis. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That would be my preference too, to leave it as it is. Vpab15 (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
We do have other examples we can use as guidance, Berchanhimez. Three other examples of disease pages using the common name instead of the official name.
  • Polio: Poliomyelitis, commonly shortened to polio, is an infectious disease caused by the poliovirus.
  • Whooping cough: Whooping cough, also known as pertussis or the 100-day cough, is a highly contagious bacterial disease.
  • Chickenpox: Chickenpox, also known as varicella, is a highly contagious disease caused by the initial infection with varicella zoster virus (VZV).
I think it's safe to say that there's not a strong preference for either the official or common name first, but it is most common to bold all names in that first sentence. I'd prefer we keep both names bolded, and use something other than a parenthetical to refer to whichever name is second. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Acronyms are almost always introduced using parenthesis. See for example HIV/AIDS or NASA. I would prefer to keep it as it is in the intro. Regarding the infobox, I think we could remove the long name since it is rarely used and it is already in the intro. Vpab15 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair point on acronyms, and I agree with your preference on both the lede and infobox. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that those do suggest that defining the acronym is likely due for the lead, and I did consider examples such as what you gave, but I didn’t include them because they are fundamentally different in an important way - they aren’t acronyms, but shortenings or completely different names. I think there is a valid argument either way, and I don’t particularly have a problem with the holding either way, but I do feel that the title (COVID-19) should be first, followed by the expansion be it bold or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The current formatting should be retained despite the article title change. The general format on Wikipedia is to have the full name bolded followed by a common acronym or abbreviation bolded and in parentheses. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

    • I'm the person who removed the full name from the lead, I did it because there appears to be consensus that the title of the article is "COVID", not "Coronavirus disease". 053pvr (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
There certainly was consensus to change the title, as judged by the RM discussion. But that does not equate to consensus to remove the full name from the lead. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, I can't think of an example where a lede shouldn't have the full name alongside the most common alternates. We can have as many names in the lede as makes sense, the only reason for the rename discussion is because we can only have one title. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree keep it as is with full name -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021

Under the section SARS-CoV-2 variants Main article: Variants of SARS-CoV-2 Three known variants of COVID-19 are currently spreading among global populations as of January 2021

This is incorrect. There are three known variants of SARS-CoV-2, not variants of COVID-19 Nialled (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Doing... ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 13:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done - See Special:Diff/1012077296. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 13:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

I want to change a mistake that I found in The Covid-19 article. The first positive was in November, 2019 and not in December, 2019 Thank You Mihirbht (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source. WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinezMD (talk • contribs)

Face masks outdoors

"Wearing face masks outdoors where people keep a distance from each other is considered as not necessary.[1][2]"

[10][11] . Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

And, since we are already there, what is the problem with this edit [12] ? Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

CDC and the WHO both recommend wearing masks outdoors when physical distance (6' or 1m respectively) can't be maintained. [13][14]. Your two sources were not only out of date, but one was an opinion piece which doesn't meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines we follow pretty strictly for COVID-19 articles. If we were to include something on the topic, it would need to be referred to as a 'significant minority viewpoint', not as the scientific consensus. The hand sanitizer issue seems to be that the original source was dropped. I'll add this back in, along with the WHO suggestions. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Im sorry friend but it would be hard to agree on your "out of date" argument, given a source is a research done about 9 months ago and published about 5 months ago. I scrolled through first few sources of this article and they are April 2020, 13 May 2020, 17 April 2020, "Retrieved 3 March 2021". Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find which one of these [15] [16] is the opinion piece? Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
In which case, focus on the greater weight of the CDC and WHO (meaning any contradictory sources must be portrayed as such), and the other concerns I listed.
The opinion piece is this one. Open the PDF to see it is a "Viewpoints" article, defined as We welcome viewpoints that present the opinions of the authors rather than new experimental data or literature reviews.Bakkster Man (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Manyareasexpert. Hey there. I reverted your first set of edits because 1) the only source provided was a preprint, which is not allowed in COVID articles (see community sanctions notice at the top of this talk page), and 2) some of the facts you introduced disagreed with this CDC page. For example, your text says Face masks outdoors as long as a distance of 1 m is kept or in an uncrowded well-ventilated space are not required and the CDC page says If you can’t stay at least 6 feet apart from people who don’t live with you, wear your mask. Those are of course completely different statements. I didn't revert the second set of edits, so no comment on those. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry friends but two sentences - "If you can’t stay at least 6 feet apart from people who don’t live with you, wear your mask" and "Wearing face masks outdoors where people keep a distance from each other is considered as not necessary" - are not in a contradiction, they are actually quite in an agreement. One is specifically conditioned to a situation "can’t stay at least 6 feet apart from people", the second being specifically conditioned about a "people keep a distance" situation, do you agree? Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
1 meter (3 feet) and 6 feet are very different distances. Since this is a disease that kills people (my friend died from it last month), in my opinion, getting these details right is very important. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope your friend has not caught it outdoors. Would it be OK if we drop a preprint and 1m? Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Make whatever edits you need to. Just make sure it's sourced heavily and sourced well. You may already know this, but as a reminder, WP:MEDRS requires that we use only the following sources: statements from national/international medical organizations (CDC, NHS, WHO, etc.), review articles in medical journals (PubMed with the following filters is a good place to start: review, systematic review, meta-analysis, MEDLINE), or textbooks. Following MEDRS is how we guarantee accuracy on this important, complex, and sometimes contentious topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the words "not necessary" violate the WP:NPOV policy by not having the impartial tone required. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Please suggest the correct wording. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the current wording in the lede is fine, and doesn't need to cover every circumstance: The use of face masks or coverings has been recommended in public settings to minimise the risk of transmissions. For the Face masks and respiratory hygiene section, it also appears to be an accurate summation of the guidelines without going too deep into minutiae: The WHO and the US CDC recommend individuals wear non-medical face coverings in public settings where there is an increased risk of transmission and where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain. As the CDC notes in their cited guidance: Masks may not be necessary when you are outside by yourself away from others, or with people who live in your household. However, some areas may have mask mandates while out in public, so please check the rules in your local area (such as in your city, county, or state). Additionally, check whether any federal mask mandates apply to where you will be going. All this tells me we'd just be opening a can of worms trying to list all the possible exemptions for masks, instead of the wording we have currently. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/kenkou_iryou/dengue_fever_qa_00014.html
  2. ^ https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2195/5866410

Reinfection

[1]

The team found that, at about 6 months after initial infection, protection against repeat infection was approximately 80%, with no significant difference in reinfection rates between men and women. But this protection was reduced to 47% for those aged 65 years or older, emphasizing the need to prioritize vaccinations for this group.

Voproshatel (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

While this is good stuff to watch, the source paper is a primary study. The policy for COVID-19 articles has been to follow WP:MEDRS pretty strictly, which means waiting for a secondary source to recognize it as consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nature (2021-03-19). "COVID research updates: Older people are at higher risk of getting COVID twice". Nature Portfolio. Retrieved 2021-03-23.

Transmition: up to two weeks vs up to two weeks on average

In Transmition section of the arcticle is this sentence:

People remain infectious in moderate cases for 7–12 days, and up to two weeks in severe cases.

In reference source is information slightly different:

The infectious period is estimated to last for eight to 10 days in moderate cases, and up to two weeks on average in severe cases.

IMHO sentence in our article means, that maximum of infectious period are just two weeks, no longer, but source mentions two weeks as average, so for some people could be infectious period longer than two weeks. If anybody covid-19 positive takes current sentence from article as correct, he could make wrong conclusion, that after 14 days he is not infectious.

Could somebody check this and resolve it, maybe using other sources too? Thank you! --Adam Hauner (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel better sourcing could improve these statements as a whole, but "up to two weeks on average" is a butchering of English grammar - it's either an average (one number, a fact, one single point of data), or it's "up to" (which implies more than one data point). I've removed "on average" and added "or more" because I feel that most accurately reflects the source, but anyone who feels they have better sourcing or can more accurately depict current sourcing without causing a grammar error that causes ambiguity should do so without me objecting. I'll also consider such edits, so long as they are a good faith effort to further improve or add more sourcing, a "revert" of my edit here for the purposes of any DS that may be in place in this article/topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems strange to find good citations for. Most of what I can find from WHO and CDC list times that viable viral RNA can be retrieved from a person, not infectious duration. Though I think we have a source somewhere on ne of the COVID-19 related pages with examples of epidemiological examples of transmission after 14 days (a secondary source referencing several primary studies in China). I'll keep an eye out for it. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021 (2)

At the 8.4 section of Comorbidities, after "When someone with existing respiratory problems is infected with COVID-19, they might be at greater risk for severe symptoms.[287]", I propose to add the following sentence:

Acting on the ACE2 pulmonary receptors, similar to smoking, short term[A] and chronic[B,C] exposure to air pollution is being investigated as a co-factor enhancing morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.[D,E,F]

A. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039338 B. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd4049 C. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.597753 D. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124487 E. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109861 F. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127973 Ricsnap (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of research going on in regards to COVID, but until it's more conclusive I don't think adding it to the article is helpful. It would just be more volume that may be ultimately found non-contributory to the illness. MartinezMD (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not agree. References showing a correlation between air pollution and COVID-19 have piled up to the extent that there are a few reviews about the matter published and cited here. The short-term effect may be a type of research still in the works, but the long term effect is not quite up to debate anymore, as well as smoking cigarettes.Ricsnap (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated source

"Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)". U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 6 April 2020. Archived from the original on 2 March 2020. Retrieved 19 April 2020.

Why are you still referring to this grossly outdated source? Vinucube (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is old, but is it outdated? Looking at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html, which appears to be current (dated Updated Feb. 16, 2021), it has the same info (although the source, #35, is from Feb 2020). BTW, for anyone wondering, this is featured at https://lockdownsceptics.org/2021/04/01/why-does-wikipedia-claim-a-fifth-of-covid-infections-are-severe/ William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I suspect we might be able to replace this with a more relevant source, a direct estimate of illness rather than clinical guidance for treatment. The CDC's disease burden estimate could help, though it breaks things down slightly differently into infections, symptomatic illness, and hospitalizations. The estimated hospitalization rate among infections (~4.1M out of ~83.1M) roughly mirrors the 5% critical illness in the cited page above. Perhaps this estimate would be more useful, especially since it breaks hospitalizations into five age cohorts (from 1% risk ages 0-4, to 46% risk ages 65+). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't find these important topics

VIR-7831 & GSK4182136, COVID-19 antibody therapies by Vir Biotechnology & GlaxoSmithKline.
[17][18][19][20][21]
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Monoclonal antibodies broadly are covered in the Treatments section. Are these two specific treatments approved for use anywhere? Particularly with a secondary source? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to alert about missing articles, for news search: VIR-7831 EUA, some secondary sources are [1][2][3][4][5]. see COVID-19 drug development COVID-19 drug repurposing research
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's highly unlikely that most of these trial therapies/repurposements will qualify for articles on their own - and even those that do likely wouldn't be able to be more than a few paragraphs long. WP:GNG is required for an article to be a stand alone article, but note that per WP:OVERLAP (the merge guidance), just having a lot of articles to meet WP:GNG doesn't make us have a standalone article when the information can be covered in another. Having approval (not just emergency use, really) in one or more countries/jurisdictions makes it more likely the treatment deserves a standalone article (ex: remdesivir), and even if it hasn't gained full approval, things like Casirivimab/imdevimab which have seen significant use (i.e. widespread or in significant people/areas of the world/etc) may merit standalone - but I'm not even sure that one does. My point here is that "emergency use" does not necessarily mean it is notable enough for a full article on it - especially if that article will only amount to a paragraph or two on the studies, and a paragraph or two on its use. Note WP:RECENTISM - therapies which are currently under emergency use may be approved fully in the future as we saw with remdesivir in the EU, although it's still conditional it's more than an "emergency use" which is automatically withdrawn when the emergency is over. Alternatively, these emergency use authorizations can be withdrawn if they are not useful anymore - which strongly suggests they don't deserve a standalone article simply for being investigated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

misinformation on this page.

second paragraph:

‘Of those people who develop noticeable symptoms, most (81 per cent) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to mild pneumonia), while 14 per cent develop severe symptoms (dyspnea, hypoxia, or more than 50 per cent lung involvement on imaging), and 5 per cent suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure, shock, or multiorgan dysfunction).’

This is claiming that almost a fifth of symptomatic Covid-19 infections are severe, and that 1 in 20 are critical. If these are the statistics people are reading, no wonder they’re scared. its complete nonsense and the current world datd doesnt support it.

All your statistics come straight from an early study on the first 44,000 Covid patients in China, published on February 24, 2020. The study does not mention hospital admissions and it appears that all of these cases were in fact hospital patients. At any rate, the figures suggest a sample heavily skewed towards serious illness.

Your article is misinformation and fake news. 2.59.114.197 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

See section above. But, do you have any better source? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
While the source could stand an update, the definition of severe is rather tame. For example dyspnea just means feeling short of breath, which is a fairly common symptom and likely occurs in MORE than 14%. Come back when you want to be constructive. MartinezMD (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19/Archive_17&oldid=1021532915"