Jump to content

Talk:SARS-CoV-2/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Requested move 31 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: moved. There is no significant consensus for a move to the original proposed title "2019-nCoV". A lot of those supports were also either accompanied with a preference for the alternate title or with the alternate title for the second choice. Only a handful of opposes for both of the titles proposed and/or supported titles that had not gained any consensus here. Given the general preference for the alternate title, a lot of which were only w.r.t. the alternate title with no preference (and the ones which opposed the originally proposed title), it makes sense to assess the preferential supports in support of the alternative title. Taking those into account and lack of a strong opposition to the titles proposed, there is a consensus for this requested move to move this article to "2019 novel coronavirus". qedk (t 桜 c) 08:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → 2019-nCoV – :

The current title is still malformed. We should either call this 2019 novel coronavirus[1][2][3] or just... 2019-nCoV.[3][4][5] The current article title is a bad combination of both these names for the virus. See #Requested move 22 January 2020 for context.

References

  1. ^ Huang, Chaolin; Wang, Yeming; Li, Xingwang; Ren, Lili; Zhao, Jianping; Hu, Yi; Zhang, Li; Fan, Guohui; Xu, Jiuyang; Gu, Xiaoying; Cheng, Zhenshun (2020-01-24). "Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China". The Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5. PMID 31986264. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Chan, Jasper Fuk-Woo; Yuan, Shuofeng; Kok, Kin-Hang; To, Kelvin Kai-Wang; Chu, Hin; Yang, Jin; Xing, Fanfan; Liu, Jieling; Yip, Cyril Chik-Yan; Poon, Rosana Wing-Shan; Tsoi, Hoi-Wah (2020-01-24). "A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster". The Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30154-9. PMID 31986261. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ a b Hui, David S.; I Azhar, Esam; Madani, Tariq A.; Ntoumi, Francine; Kock, Richard; Dar, Osman; Ippolito, Giuseppe; Mchugh, Timothy D.; Memish, Ziad A.; Drosten, Christian; Zumla, Alimuddin (2020-01-14). "The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health - The latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China". The International Journal of Infectious Diseases. International Society for Infectious Diseases. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.009. PMID 31953166. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Gralinski, Lisa E.; Menachery, Vineet D. (2020-01-24). "Return of the Coronavirus: 2019-nCoV". Viruses. doi:10.3390/v12020135. PMID 31991541. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  5. ^ Corman, Victor M.; Landt, Olfert; Kaiser, Marco; Molenkamp, Richard; Meijer, Adam; Chu, Daniel KW; Bleicker, Tobias; Brünink, Sebastian; Schneider, Julia; Schmidt, Marie Luisa; Mulders, Daphne GJC (2020-01-23). "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR". Eurosurveillance. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • (I feel like it's worth noting here that MERS-CoV was originally referred to as "2012-nCoV" or "Novel Coronavirus" just like this species is so the name will allmost certainly be changed again regardless out outcome Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC))
* Second choice: Rename to Wuhan coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME and to align with the title of 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. ----Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I have crossed out your second proposal as we have already discussed this and rejected it, as for your first proposal SARS-CoV has an article separate from SARS and MERS CoV has an article separate from MERS this distinction largely applies to all articles about viruses with the viruses having a separate article from the diseases they cause. I don't really see why the article should largely be merged into the main coronavirus article if SARS and MERS aren't. Ideally there should be three articles, one on the virus itself, a second on the disease the virus causes and a third on the outbreak itself, though there isn't enough information at the moment to separate the latter two articles, at least in my opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It is unclear why this should be merged into Coronavirus when each of the 7 coronaviruses that have caused infections in humans has its own article. It is not workable to merge all seven into Coronavirus (including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV), and they are all considered different species, which are usually given their own articles. Meanwhile, there is a hatnote at Coronavirus pointing to this article. Dekimasuよ! 05:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with @Dekimasu:. The subject (the virus) shall warrant its own article per academic notability test. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support move to either title proposed, with a slight preference for 2019-nCoV as it's at least unambiguous and the official name, and nothing else genuinely catchy has been settled on by the media. The current title is okay, but it does feel unnecessarily messy as it's basically two names. Either of the proposed names are sufficiently unambiguous, used by relevant sources, and don't have the unhelpful baggage of the previously proposed names involving Wuhan. ~ mazca talk 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The full article title of the SARS virus is Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and I feel that the title of the article should include the word "coronavirus" in some capacity as it is known currently by most people as simply "the coronavirus"."2019-nCoV" on its own is too obstuse and techical, and isn't descriptive. However, the title Novel Coronavirus on its own seems too generic. I think the current name "Novel Coronavirus (2019 nCoV)" while somewhat stilted and awkward, encapsulates the scope of the article perfectly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm assuming that might be what you meant, but for clarity that part of the proposal is for "2019 novel coronavirus" rather than just "Novel coronavirus", which I agree would be very generic. ~ mazca talk 21:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
My mistake, I prefer 2019 Novel coronavirus over 2019 nCoV, as it is more descriptive, but I'm not hugely fussed on the change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
There already is a novel coronavirus disambiguation page. This one is the fourth listed. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support move to 2019-nCoV because what of that name is preferred. This virus should be known by its scientific name. 25 out of 55 wikipedias in other languages doesn't use "novel coronavirus" or its equivalents in their native language because it will grammatically incorrect, for example Belarus, German, Indonesian, Catalan, Dutch, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, and many more (Most of Germanic language wikipedias doesn't use name like novel coronavirus in their language). English is one of many languages that use novel coronavirus or its equivalent along with its scientific name, same as Arabic, Italian, Korean, and Turkish language. The term novel coronavirus would confuse if other virus than 2019-nCoV released.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk)
What article titles other language wikipedia articles use is irrelevant to this discussion. As 2019 nCoV is a temporary name anyway this article title will inevitably be changed again Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Additional comment As some have mentioned, the current article title does need to change as "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" is not concise and is against WP:AT, even if the move may be temporary. Once we have the final scientific/medical name, we can make another move per WP:NCMED. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus as it is a descriptive WP:COMMONNAME and while 2019-nCoV is the most technically correct hardly anyone in the general public calls it that way. GoodCrossing (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus sufficently WP:COMMONNAME until either we need to diasmbiguate, or the ICTV confirm a new virus name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus and support move to 2019-nCoV. The first is common ordinary language and the second is compact (temporary) scientific terminology. Since the scientific name could in principle still be changed, and since the ordinary language name tends to be used more than the present scientific name, 2019 novel coronavirus would tend to be favoured out of these two options. (The Wuhan connotation seems to me to still be common in the media, for obvious reasons, but that was strongly objected to in the previous move proposal, especially because of the problem of long-term negative connotations for a geographical region.) Boud (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - I am all for being consistent with articles about other viruses in this class, but if this provisional name is not likely to become the final name in scientific circles then we can wait. So, I support the move provided that provisional names like this usually become the final names for this class of virus, or more specifically, that this provisional name is likely to be the final name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Update per Hemiauchenia's reply below: Probably a no - if scientific name is likely to be changed, we can wait for the change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: MERS-CoV was originally referred to as 2012-nCoV or simply "novel coronavirus" just like 2019 nCoV so the name is almost certainly going to be changed. Guess that's a no then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment yet for me I decide to support rename 2019-nCoV for now as provisional name until final name was announced by WHO. Until now, not yet final name of 2019-nCoV was revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Moving the page in the next few days doesn't prevent us from moving it again; we don't know if the official name will really be released in a few days; and in either event we won't do a "speedy rename" without discussion, both because the WP:COMMONNAME won't change immediately (WP:NAMECHANGES), and because we don't use official names automatically. I think it is better to proceed with this and then revisit the issue as soon as is necessary, whenever that may be. Dekimasuよ! 08:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dekimasu: No, it doesn't prevent a second rename, but that would be needless churn. Reading the comments here, the sole point of contention is that we want something better than "2019 nCoV" but don't have anything. Many other comments here are either "oppose, wait for a better name" or "support, although I wish there were a better name", so we can consider this rename discussion a mandate to switch to a new official name when it exists and appears to be gaining traction. I agree that widespread usage is a prerequisite, but I think if that is met (which could take as little as 48 hours at current news rates), a consensus to use it already demonstrably exists on WP. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Support 2019 novel coronavirus. "2019 nCoV" (which is just an abbreviation of the that) is too abbreviated and jargon-y for an article name. (I recently made a similar change merging nCoV into novel coronavirus and converting the former to a redirect.) I wish there was a better name (I have one friend who calls it "SARS II" despite the order-of-magnitude difference in the case fatality rate), but that's the best we have for now. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment: If people agree with User:Hemiauchenia that a better name is imminent, I'm not opposed to waiting, but I'm not convinced that's true; surely there's been enough time and attention for WHO to propose a name if they were going to? I mostly oppose 2019 nCoV; if you want to change, use the full name. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It's worth noting that there is an entire article "Novel coronavirus" dedicated to the topic. Apparently SARS was originally referred to as 2002-nCoV, so the fact that it will be changed is almost certain. I agre that the WHO has been far too slow in giving the Coronavirus a proper name though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: Um, yes, I know; I created it. :-) 196.247.24.12 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
More technically 67.70.33.184 created the article at nCoV, which you moved to "Novel Coronavirus" and significantly expanded. The comment was aimed to inform other reading contributors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: FWIW, the sequence of events was I tried to look up novel coronavirus on WP and discovered that it was a redirect somewhere other than 2019-nCoV, which I decided was a stupid mistake. so I created a disambiguation page. It was during my search for pages to include in the disambiguation list that I discovered nCoV, so I merged its contents into my draft. (Then I published the whole thing in one go.) It really did start as as independent rewrite, not a move. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I do Oppose moving it to "2019-nCoV", as per the above. My support is for the long form only. Renerpho (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Mvolz, why should we wait when the current title is so bad and a good alternative (2019 novel coronavirus) is available now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
As Hemiauchenia had said, I think (2019 novel coronavirus) alone is a bit too generic. Mvolz (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Mvolz, that is not what they said. They said My mistake, I prefer 2019 Novel coronavirus over 2019 nCoV, as it is more descriptive, but I'm not hugely fussed on the change. (emphasis modified) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
It might seem generic in some cases, but here we know that there will only be one coronavirus using that name, since we're already in 2020. Dekimasuよ! 13:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's fine, we can do this again when it's necessary. It is always part of an ongoing process. However, we don't necessarily move things immediately because an official name has been selected. We wait for sources to follow, under WP:NAMECHANGES. Right now, the sources are on board with what is listed in this move request, so let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Dekimasuよ! 02:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any sense in which "novel coronavirus" is a complete formal name for this particular virus. "(novel coronavirus)" might be a sufficient disambiguator denoting the class of virus if one were necessary, but it isn't in this case. Dekimasuよ! 13:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Post closure discussion

Moved from User talk:Wugapodes#Novel coronavirus Thanks for closing the discussion. Although I don't agree with your reading of the consensus in the discussion and think it would be overturned in a WP:MR discussion, since the current title is not appropriate under WP:AT and there were very few editors who opposed the title 2019 novel coronavirus (3 who said wait, 1 who proposed a title that was already rejected in the previous discussion's consensus, 1 who did not seem to have a grasp of the conversation and thought a redlinked title was the common name), I don't intend to argue that with you very strenuously here. And as you said, it might be superseded at that point by a different official title. However, I would appreciate it if you would clarify on the talk page that the close is a "no consensus" close in your reading. There doesn't appear to be any procedural issue in the formulation of the request or the discussion that would result in a procedural close, so the outcome should be based either on finding a consensus in the discussion or not finding one. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, in your edit summary you wrote "not moved", which is generally RM-speak for consensus against a move (WP:NOTMOVED) and I can't imagine that's what you intended here. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear; I use "not moved" literally to mean that the page stayed where it was not as an indication of consensus, but I appreciate the feedback and will try to be more clear in the future!
I've revised the close, let me know if you still disagree. To explain slightly more, while the number of editors saying "wait" was relatively small, their reasoning was sound and couldn't be discounted easily. They offered an argument as to why moving at all was suboptimal, but the various "support" !votes that came after barely engaged with that reasoning. The few times the "wait" opinions were challenged, the editors in favor of waiting refuted the "move and then move again" arguments. For example, the IP editor's response to you summarizes it well: [I]t doesn't prevent a second rename, but that would be needless churn. Reading the comments here, the sole point of contention is that we want something better than "2019 nCoV" but don't have anything. Many other comments here are either "oppose, wait for a better name" or "support, although I wish there were a better name", so we can consider this rename discussion a mandate to switch to a new official name when it exists and appears to be gaining traction.
After Hemiauchenia's comment, the proportion of support to oppose opinions shifted dramatically, and many opposers cited Hemiauchenia's comments explicitly as leading them to oppose. Meanwhile two editors who originally supported the proposal changed their opinion to "wait" after engaging with that argument. While the early discussion tilted towards "2019 novel coronavirus", after more participants joined and engaged in critical discussion, the opposition managed to convince supporters to change their minds. Supporters convinced no opposers.
While the opposers, numerically, were not many, among those editors who considered those arguments, they were considered very convincing and significant. By comparison, supporters abandoned their position, showing that participants didn't find that position as convincing. So I discounted supports in comparison to the "wait" opposes. Despite that, the sheer number of supports indicates that while the oppose votes were convincing, there was no consensus that they were the correct path. Thus no consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, I don't think it's the best use of our time to argue about the close. However, I was fairly sure the discussion showed consensus and didn't want to bog it down with pestering the opposers, so I didn't even bother to engage with them much. That's on me, I suppose (though it wasn't my proposal to begin with). My take would be this: there is no such thing as "needless churn" on Wikipedia (or conversely, all editing on Wikipedia incorporates some degree of needless churn). That's part of the perennial "no deadline"/"the deadline is now" debate. But coming down on the side of waiting involves a few different stages of speculation: 1) that there is no usefulness to having the page at the intermediate title until a new one is selected (that is, that readers and editors from today until the next time the page is moved won't be caused problems by the current title), 2) that the new title will be propagated on schedule (which is kind of a version of WP:CRYSTAL, I think), 3) that the new title will be adopted soon enough that it will fit WP:NAMECHANGES and not just be a case of WP:OFFICIAL, and 4) that a new discussion to settle on the new title will be able to gain consensus. That is, I took the "wait" opinions as irrelevant to the question as to whether the proposed title was preferable to the current title. Nothing about moving the page precludes a new discussion to establish a new title later; the main problem we have now is that the page was moved several times before we had anything like the level of consensus shown for 2019 novel coronavirus in the current discussion, resulting in a title no one likes. In move discussions, "wait" is often correctly read as an indication of opposition to the move, but in most cases those who write "wait" in a move discussion are asking for evidence that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, not arguing that the common name may change in the future. One of those reflects policy and the other doesn't, I think. At any rate, I appreciate your responsiveness. Dekimasuよ! 06:46, 8 February 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.

Requested move 9 February 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: Speedy close. A move request was just closed earlier today. Please wait a while before initiating further move requests. El_C 19:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

– I appreciated to the editors to rename this article from Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) to 2019 novel coronavirus. But according to many source such as CDC [6], ASM [7], Medscape [8] and many other sources, the alphabet N was capitalized. So according to grammar, the true name was 2019 Novel coronavirus (with capitalized N), not 2019 novel coronavirus (with lowercase n). This is unclear whether N in word "novel" is capitalized or not. 36.76.224.32 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • It seems probable that the proposer and the vote above are the same editor working from different IPs. Dekimasuよ! 14:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
    Dekimasu, Maybe, but Indonesia is a large country I note they share only the first level 36.*.*.* subnet. The close timing of the posts is somewhat suspicious, but it's really hard to say, in absence of definitive proof, particularly as the second IP editor opposes all the other moves, no? Doug Mehus T·C 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be a good idea to have the titles align eventually. However, strong oppose all and request speedy close. First, none of the sources cited capitalize the "N" in running text. They only capitalize "2019 Novel Coronavirus" when using title case. On Wikipedia, our titles are written in WP:LOWERCASE (sentence case) which yields "2019 novel coronavirus". Even in title case, capitalizing the N and not the C would be deprecated. Second, a request was just closed today on this page. Third, the idea that 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak is the "main article" of the page on the virus itself seems misguided. Fourth, please do not request page moves that you do not support: a particular move does not need to be discussed unless there is someone asking for it. Dekimasuよ! 14:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak page is failed to move to the 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak twice in this month, and then this are happening, and not all of articles who have a 'Wuhan coronavirus' name are requested to move, so... request speedy close. --91.207.170.251 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's wait on the formal nomenclature via the NCBI, shall we? kencf0618 (talk)
  • Oppose and speedy close per Dekimasu. Can an uninvolved admin have a look at this and put it out of its misery please? Maybe even impose a moratorium unless a significant change in circumstances occurs? It seems like we've spent almost the entire period since the virus was first announced arguing about its name.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for first move only per above editors, and because it's Novel is a proper noun. Wikipedia has no rules with respect to frequency of move requests; only guidelines which are notionally policies. However, we have to remember WP:IAR is our most important policy and that WP:COMMONSENSE is said to be a suprapolicy. Eh, Amakuru? As an aside, this was an inappropriate bundling attempt, I think. WP:RS refer to the Wuhuan outbreak of Novel coronavirus; thus, those others should remain. Doug Mehus T·C 19:26, 9 February 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.

Cytokine storm

WUHAN VIRUS/Experts find how moderate 2019-nCoV infection ends with death cytokine storm as possible cause for some of the deaths of otherwise healthier individuals in current outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus.Mercurywoodrose2600:1700:5FA1:61B0:B917:BBF8:5992:6B9 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

bad sentance

Article says "The University of Hong Kong has also announced that a vaccine is under development there but has yet to proceed to animal testing.[66]" Should be more clear; "The University of Hong Kong has also announced that a vaccine is under development, but they have yet to proceed to animal testing." or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.38.247 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

R nought

Dekimasu Based on the CDC statement and other reports the number 5 for R-nought is an generally considered an outlier estimate at this time. Shouldn't we mention that? It doesn't have to be a restoration of the quote this article from the Atlantic may give more context. Dartslilly (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please note that I did not add the higher number. At the time it was added, there was a hidden comment asking editors not to add an unreliable basic reproduction number. I believe that in response to the 3-5 addition I added the 1.4-3.8 figure, which was from the outbreak article at the time. I don't think there should be any problem with rewording that part to deemphasize the 3-5 estimate. As a more general problem faced by this article, it seems like there are various research groups that want to add their names and links to their research and their own specific conclusions here, perhaps because this article is currently attracting a lot of traffic; it is difficult to manage all of these, particularly since they are generally citing unpublished research at this time. Dekimasuよ! 17:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Dartslilly, I have rephrased those sentences per this comment (although of course the article may be changed by others again before you see this). Dekimasuよ! 04:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding first published values of R0

I suggest to add the first published values of R0 that appeared in peer-review journals (NEJM and Eurosurveillance) this week.

"Research groups have estimated the basic reproduction number (R0 R_{0}, pronounced R-nought) of the virus to be between 1.4 and 5, with most estimates below 3.8.[42][43][44][45] This means that, when unchecked, the virus typically results in 1.4 to 3.8 new cases per established infection."

Could be changed to:

"The the basic reproduction number (R0 R_{0}, pronounced R-nought) of the virus has been estimated to be between 1.4 and 3.9."

The two references that support each others findings are as follows:

[1][2]

Thanks! Calthaus (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Li, Qun and Guan, Xuhua and Wu, Peng and Wang, Xiaoye and Zhou, Lei and Tong, Yeqing and Ren, Ruiqi and Leung, Kathy S M and Lau, Eric H Y and Wong, Jessica Y and Xing, Xuesen and Xiang, Nijuan and Wu, Yang and Li, Chao and Chen, Qi and Li, Dan and Liu, Tian and Zhao, Jing and Li, Man and Tu, Wenxiao and Chen, Chuding and Jin, Lianmei and Yang, Rui and Wang, Qi and Zhou, Suhua and Wang, Rui and Liu, Hui and Luo, Yingbo and Liu, Yuan and Shao, Ge and Li, Huan and Tao, Zhongfa and Yang, Yang and Deng, Zhiqiang and Liu, Boxi and Ma, Zhitao and Zhang, Yanping and Shi, Guoqing and Lam, Tommy T Y and Wu, Joseph T K and Gao, George F and Cowling, Benjamin J and Yang, Bo and Leung, Gabriel M and Feng, Zijian (2020). "Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia". N Engl J Med. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001316.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Riou, Julien and Althaus, Christian L. (2020). "Pattern of early human-to-human transmission of Wuhan 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), December 2019 to January 2020". Eurosurveillance. 25 (4). doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.4.2000058.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
 Done Basically instituted: kept the second sentence but adjusted the numbers and added the sources. It seems clear at this point that the 5 number is an outlier (and, as you pointed out, these are published and that wasn't), so I have removed that reference for now. Dekimasuよ! 04:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
In addition, I should note that any conflicts of interest should be self-reported, as your username may be taken to indicate one here. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Well spotted! 89.206.115.106 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dekimasu: wait... where? how? robertsky (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The second source, but the journal seems reliable enough, so I've left things at that for now. Dekimasuよ! 14:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
C. Althaus, good spotting. @Dekimasu: Where's a good place to declare conflicts of interest for specific articles? I should declare that my spouse works on this stuff (same last name - Erik M Volz), but I've been careful not to cite anything written by him. I did fix a link that someone else added from Imperial College London to the more specific Imperial_College_Faculty_of_Medicine (his employer). Mvolz (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Mvolz, thanks for pointing this out voluntarily. If you want to mark it here or on another specific article talk page, you can use Template:Connected contributor at the top of the article's talk. In this case it doesn't sound like you need to do so. On your userpage, you can create a list using Template:UserboxCOI or create a similar text-based list. Dekimasuよ! 13:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

small grammar correction69.137.146.91 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please change the following sentence as shown.


This makes an ultimate origin in bats likely,[12][13] although there an intermediate reservoir such as a pangolin may be be involved.

This makes an ultimate origin in bats likely,[12][13] although an intermediate reservoir such as a pangolin may be be involved.

Done, then superseded. Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 16:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 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: No consensus, please see: [9] New RM is recommended first on the 20th of february, where all relevant articles should be included.
(non-admin closure) Carl Fredrik talk 01:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

– World Health Organization and International Committee for Taxonomy of Virus called new official name of virus and disease as SARS-CoV 2 and COVID-19. 36.76.229.147 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative request move for first article from 2019 novel coronavirus to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus subtype 2 36.76.229.147 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Must have missed this. Source on the new classifications? BlackholeWA (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with all the merges. I vote Merge all pages due to the change of names by WHO and ICTV. FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There are no merges in the main proposal; a side proposal for one merge was made. Boud (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@FranciscoMMartins: I've moved the side proposal to Talk:2019 novel coronavirus#Merge proposal if you could clarify which you support. Mvolz (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mvolz: Hi! Thank you for the feedback :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with any move to a COVID name. SARS-cov 2, no opinion. IBE (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for all the *Wuhan coronavirus outbreak* articles for Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Requested move 11 February 2020 to be resolved, and then propose a name change of those articles consistent with that decision. Boud (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Boud (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support renaming 2019 novel coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2 (with both hyphens), as the official name chosen by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses and used in the research literature (not yet peer-reviewed). Boud (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (ec) I think these are two different discussions, which is the point of drawing a distinction between this page that has an "official" title made by the ICTV and the "COVID-19"-related pages that have "official" titles made by the WHO. On the other hand, we need to keep in mind WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:OFFICIAL. We do not necessarily change page titles because official titles have changed. Instead, we reflect how common usage has adapted after the official name changes. There is no way we can yet know the extent to which these names will be adopted after less than 12 hours, and no evidence of a shift in usage has been presented here, so the move request was premature. I would anticipate supporting a move to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (the full name given by ICTV here; it does not include "related" because the naming is based upon the name of the previous SARS virus, not any relationship to SARS "disease") or possibly "SARS-CoV-2" at some point in the future. I think a merge of the strains is unwarranted at this time, although if that is not done it may be necessary to clarify the relationship further at Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus. No objection to a speedy close of this request if it is determined that the multimove grouping made by the IP proposer is suboptimal. Dekimasuよ! 00:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this is too many to consider at once and is overlapping with other move discussions in progress. It would be better to stick with one proposal to rename this page. Anyway before renaming anything make sure that other independent sources start using the new names before we react. This page should probably eventually rename to the full name of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It's got a name now, but how many people know about it at this time? Not many. If you go out on the streets, you'll most likely hear people call it the coronavirus and not "sars cov two". Yes things like this should be formal, but then for convenience purposes, we'll use the simple non-complex term. Can I Log In (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Feel like commonname isn't a good argument for the current title, as the current title isn't really even a "name", it's more a description. The name that the media is using is "coronavirus", with no qualification, which obviously isn't appropriate as it refers to an entire virus family. Moving to the new designation would reflect both the official terminology and also give the article a unique name that isn't just a slightly exhaustive description of its subject. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support all of the COVID name changes. Searches for COVID are skyrocketing on Google Trends (7-day). It looks like it is now more popular than "Wuhan coronavirus" so it checks off WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCMED. Support but wait a few days on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rename as it's clear that one will take a little bit more time to become widely recognized. Wikmoz (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Edited - Wikmoz (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - we should move the page to SARS-CoV-2
The more and more I edit these Wikipedia pages, the more and more that I have realised how politically motivated most editors are despite the fact that this is an ongoing medical emergency. The main article on the outbreak is unreadable because it's written so simply... readers who don't speak fluent English aren't coming here and we can compute technical terms. The facts are as follows:
"SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the virus and hence should be the title of the virus's wikipedia article. The article is mostly technical anyway so WP:COMMONNAME is stupid.
COVID-19 is the official name of the disease and this article is also mostly technical so hence should be the name of the disease
2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic should be the name of the article, which is similar to the conventions established previously through articles such as 2009 flu pandemic, which would be called Swine flu if it were COMMONNAME. Furthermore, using people or using locations to refer to epidemics is disliked by the political and medical community, except to refer to the disease WITHIN a locality or person, such as referring to the "Princess Cruise Outbreak" about the COVID-19 epidemic within the confines of the cruise (currently docked in or near Japan). I notice that it's mostly the same people who constantly revamp the pages to suit their political agendas.
SomethingNastyHere (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Evidence is required. Since it looks like this is not going to be speedily closed, I'll point out again that more than simple supports and opposes, what is needed if the pages are to be moved is evidence that the common names for the things discussed in these articles is changing—that is, evidence that fits WP:NAMECHANGES and doesn't simply rely upon the idea that one or another title is official. There is a confounding issue in that some of the pages involved in the move request are descriptive titles (WP:NDESC) that don't work exactly the same way as far as common names go under WP:AT, but without any evidence beyond a comment on Google Trends it is unlikely that this has enough policy/guideline support to pass. Please provide the evidence if you would like to see these moves go through. Dekimasuよ! 08:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Dekimasu what makes a page COMMONNAME though? Who actually uses the term "2019 novel coronavirus" is common parlance? The term "coronavirus" or "new sars" would be alone enough to identify the outbreak. I have never actually heard the word "Wuhan" being used to refer to the outbreak, the closest is usually just "are you worried about that outbreak from China". SomethingNastyHere (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is something to be said for the idea that no common name has been established for something that came into the public eye so recently, it's true. That's one of the reasons I did not object when 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease was immediately moved to COVID-19, although it's since been reverted and now requires further discussion. The underlying guidance is that we "generally prefer the name that is most commonly used, as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Here that means not what people are saying on the street, but what medical journals, papers of record, and other reliable secondary sources use to refer to these subjects. In this case we would want to see, for example, that The New England Journal of Medicine or The New York Times, etc., are using the new titles. Things released directly by the WHO and the ICTV do not really fall under the purview of WP:COMMONNAME on their own. (We also have WP:TITLECHANGES, which says if there's not a good reason to move a page to a new title, we shouldn't. When possible, title stability is another underlying goal.) Dekimasuよ! 09:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the common name isn't "novel coronavirus", nor is it "SARS-CoV-2". But what's the point at situating the page at "novel coronavirus" if it is neither the official name nor the common name? 935690edits (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support of the move to SARS-CoV-2 as per the WP:COMMONNAME - Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. SARS, MERS, even H1N1 were all novel coronaviruses. It causes significant confusion, and the current name is an extremely ambiguous name. --Almaty (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose all. But I support moving all the articles in WP:CONSISTENCY with current 2019 novel coronavirus. And support moving Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 to Timeline of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. Otherwise we will keep on changing the titles every week/month. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I am one of the editors that has contributed somewhat to this article. I am making one generic comment to cover all three article pages, with a general "support" to all the moves except in terms of the technicalities of the name... I consider the name of the virus to be "SARS-CoV-2" so precedence would suggest that the name of the virus article should be "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2". The WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "coronavirus" and "novel/new coronavirus" which make for unencyclopedic article titles and should remain nothing more than placeholder names... The disease is called "COVID-9" so similarly the article should be "Coronavirus disease 2019". The usage of the word "novel" should be discouraged as per comments above... The outbreak article should be "2019-20 coronavirus outbreak" (similar to the Zika virus outbreak) or as suggest in other comments "2019-20 COVID-9 outbreak" (similar to the 2009 flu pandemic as suggested elsewhere). I disagree that the name would confuse people because the vast majority of people are either going to be confused with "coronavirus" (in which case the Simple English Wikipedia would help) or they would be able to deduce what it means. There are numerous WP:COMMONNAME that can be used so I think that all of them should redirect to a more formal name... Putting together all these arguments, which aren't related to the arguments about whether a virus/disease/outbreak ought to be named after cities, I am against the usage of the word "novel" in article titles and supportive of using official names across the virus, disease and outbreak articles. I also disagree that there is an established WP:COMMONNAME out there and this Wikipedia article may in fact be "forcing" the "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" onto society. Tsukide (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per BlackholeWA. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It isn't clear that COVID-19 will be widely adopted, far too early, so I would leave it as it is and use WP:COMMONNAME at least for the time being. As I indicated in previous renaming discussing of the 2019 novel coronavirus article, the name used for the article was meant to be temporary and we shouldn't really use a temporary name. Others however disagree and we kept a temporary name as the article title, which is highly unsatisfactory. The situation is similar here, and I would suggest a wait-and-see approach to see if COVID-19 becomes commonly used. I can however make an exception for the 2019 novel coronavirus article, the name of which was, as I mentioned earlier, only temporary, and should not have been used in the first place, although I would use something more descriptive. Hzh (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let the dust settle a bit first. Why add to the confusion at this point? DrHenley (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support. International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) has designated the virus on 2020-02-11 as "SARS-CoV-2". See their paper: — Hasdi Bravo • 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    "Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the [Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of ICTV] formally recognizes this virus as a sister to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and designates it as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)."
  • Move to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NCMED. We have articles like SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV which do not use the abbreviations as the article titles so per WP:CONSISTENT, this should follow likewise instead of moving to "SARS-CoV-2". Secondly, WP:NCMED as a guideline advocates a move. But some may argue that we wait first per WP:NAMECHANGES as a policy. That makes sense but note that WP:NCMED is something to consider. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It's better to move all pages per official names. --Cuaxdon (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support for all as this will be the official name. Stability at last, stability at last, oh thank the WHO I have stability at last. That said, I have no objection to waiting a couple of weeks. I also strongly support leaving redirects from all terms used widely used by the press since this started. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Official nomenclature with criteria for non-stigmatizing colloquial usage in mind. https://time.com/5782284/who-name-coronavirus-covid-19/ kencf0618
  • Support. Now it has an official name, I feel it is best to use it. 5.252.192.144 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It isn't at all clear that COVID-19 will be widely accepted. Too early -what's the rush? Graham Beards (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Support for all. This is the official name, arguments on 'whether it will be adopted' are facetious in my view when there is already wide use in RS that overshadow all others since its official designation and and derivative articles should be adjusted to reflect that. There are 77m results for "COVID-19" compared to 28.4m for "Wuhan coronavirus". Even before this, "Wuhan coronavirus" is not and has never been the WP:COMMONNAME so the guidelines of that policy are not applicable. Sleath56 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and above but Move 2019 novel coronavirus to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. –hueman1 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per wp:commonname and official name142.103.143.128 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WHO has proposed to name the Wuhan coronavirus disease COVID-19. This is a politically-motivated change to use an undescriptive name because the placename Wuhan is regarded as insulting to the city of Wuhan, China, where the disease was first identified. However, Wikipedia is not bound by politically-motivated name changes, but should use names that are descriptive and helpful to the reader. Trying to conceal the fact this viral disease first emerged in Wuhan is unhelpful to readers and should be discouraged, regardless of what WHO's opinion. --Zeamays (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to anything containing COVID. With all due respect to the virologists at WHO, "COVID-19" is a terrible name for this virus, as "COVID" is far too similar to "CORVID", the family name for crows, which is a scientific term the lay public are already reasonably familiar with. Just from a quick Google search I can see numerous mainstream media articles mistakenly calling it "CORVID-19". This seems terribly misleading - if I knew nothing about this virus and heard that name, the obvious assumption is that this is some new kind of bird flu originating in crows, which is not the case at all. For that matter, I can't say SARS-2 is a particularly great name either, this is not a movie sequel! The WP:COMMONNAME in the media seems to be "the new coronavirus" or more rarely "Wuhan coronavirus". Personally I don't see what's wrong with 2019-nCoV for a technical name, already lots of papers that have been published using that name. Meodipt (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose [TL;DR: was originally going to go Support upon seeing WHO announcement on Twitter but once I began editing, the person above me made me reconsider things] While WHO has created an official name for this virus as mentioned by multiple users above, there is more opposition than I expected to see here. However, as @Meodipt: pointed out above me, CORVID and COVID are going to be quite confusing to differentiate especially with media already beginning to perpetuate this (and might have already begun to leave some impressions on Google's search prediction algorithims). Overall, renaming this article would probably cause more ambiguity for future viewers, especially mainstream media journalists in the long run. Applying WP:COMMONNAME and keeping the current article name makes it clear which disease is being discussed, regardless of the existence of a technical name. Perhaps we can acknowledge WHO's technical name somewhere in the article while respecting WP:COMMONNAME. RayDeeUx (talk) 02:03, 13 February 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.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not merged. The discussion is only 12 hours old, but with unanimous opposition so far other than the proposer, I don't think consensus will develop and it adds confusion while the move discussion is also ongoing.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal: Merge 2019 novel coronavirus into Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus As these are now both considered strains of the same virus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose merge to SARS coronavirus; they might be classified as the same species by the ICTV but they clearly have significantly different properties. It would be very confusing to have to rewrite an existing well-developed article in every sentence to state what applies to both and where they differ, and likely to lead to mistakes and confusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose merge to SARS coronavirus. These are completely different stains with completely different epidemiological properties, i.e. SARS-CoV-2 has a much, much lower infection fatality rate, different R0, etc. Plenty of viruses have different articles for different strains. Also, I am moving this merge proposal into its own section below because it was incredibly confusing getting redirected from the tag to the talk page of the other article and then have to hunt down the thread here. Mvolz (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose merge very different stuff. Being the same species does not exclude having different articles; our taxobox has lower levels for these cases. --Artoria2e5 🌉 04:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A new discussion about move to COVID-19

I'm notifying you about a new discussion over at the 2019-nCov acute respiratory disease talk page about moving it to the COVID-19 page that might be of interest to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#Requested_move_12_February_2020

935690edits (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion to split SARS CoV into Sars 1 and the Sars species, which would be a container for this article. Discussion over at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New images

There are several new images of the virus available at this Flickr account (Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)). I think they could be useful. They are from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dekimasuよ! 16:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia articels differ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Novel_coronavirus_(2019-nCoV)

says different things from this article - can the 2 be looked at so they are consistent with each other. AS they are both protected it is not possible to easily edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I found one inconsistency and fixed it. The numbers are not up to date there, but it has an "as of" caveat. If there is something else, please let us know. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiologist interview

Yug has twice added the following text to the section on virus research: "Zhejiang University's renowned epidemiologist Li Lanjuan has announced a possible timeline of few months to produce production and test a vaccine. Patients samples allowed researchers to isolate the virus strain, from which 4 weeks are needed to create vaccine strains, 2 weeks to test these, 6 weeks for official approval.[1]"

I have removed the addition, because many well-known doctors have made comments about vaccine research in regards to 2019-nCoV, and it is unclear why we should focus on this single researcher's opinion here. The YouTube clip cited does not say that Li Lanjuan or the university is directly involved in any vaccine development. It only explains one possible timeline and is not really an "announcement" (Yug did add "possible" in the second addition). I am moving the discussion to talk to try to resolve this; other opinions welcome. Dekimasuよ! 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dekinasu, I understand your concerns, yet I see value in this citation, be it by the fact it's a leading Chinese virologist, still in charge at Zhejiang University, and because this citation state the details of a timeline, the vaccine's substeps. Positive inclusion in my opinion. Yug (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu and Yug!

The addition that was removed should, I believe, be reinstated as soon as there is another source of an interview with another epidemiologist. If there is already an alternate source of relevant and scientic information, I don't see the point of removing it or discussing it either. Ty! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The less speculation about vaccine research, the better. All that can be said by now is that the initial antigen purifications are proceeding far better than with SARS - basically all vaccine workgroups can be supplied in abundance, so vaccine development can proceed at good speed. But this does not mean a vaccine for public use is anywhere close. An experimental therapeutic vaccine for emergency trials in already-infected patients may be ready out in less than a month if research proceeds at present speed, but this is not the same as a tested and safe vaccine for mass preventive inoculation. The latter is more limited by the time and resources required to set up a production and distribution chain, i.e. a problem of economics and logistics that is mostly outside the scope of biomedical research.
So for some time we will be getting different "expert opinions" most of which will be equally true despite vastly contradicting, because they define "vaccine" differently. And as most media reports are not likely to go into details in that regard, they're worthless (no robust information) or counterproductive (resulting in incomplete information appearing as self-contradict) as sources.
What to do? Document key steps in vaccine research as they occur, but refrain from using media speculation about future timeframes. That way, we can give clear, accurate and reliable information. 2001:4DD1:5030:0:6834:8598:D1E5:CC5E (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents

Can someone add the information please?

We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for 2019-nCoV, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext

--80.187.106.5 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✗ Not done. This has been removed from the article repeatedly, not least because the review does not include any studies at all on this particular coronavirus. The WHO also writes "From previous analysis, we know coronaviruses do not survive long on objects" (Myth busters). As before, I suggest bringing this up at Talk:Coronavirus if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 15:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI on naming

COVID-19: a disease caused by the 2019-nCoV

2019-nCoV: a new coronavirus first identified by health authorities in Wuhan, thought to derive from pangolins and ultimately bats

The outbreak that's currently taking place should be called "2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic" no matter how clumsy that sounds,similar to the 2009 flu pandemic (which was known at the time as Swine Flu), with redirects from the numerous nicknames given to the epidemic. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I basically agree with this assessment. We are still waiting on the name for the virus from ICTV. Dekimasuよ! 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2/Archive_3&oldid=1095373991"