This is an archive of past discussions about SARS-CoV-2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Structural biology removals–can the info be salvaged?
In this edit, My very best wishes removed most of the structural biology section using the edit summary "reads like promotion; also should be sourced to secondary RS". I don't necessarily disagree with the first statement. Although I think we've been careful to avoid promotion and it was edited down so that the focus was on the research itself, that section has been in a similar form for weeks and I may have gotten so used to seeing it that I don't see the promotional aspects anymore. The idea that we should be focused on secondary sources is also, of course, correct. On the other hand I think there was quite important information about the current state of research on the virus strain's structure in that paragraph, and I think it would be useful to recover some of that information if possible. Can we re-source or re-write it in a better way? Suggestions appreciated. Dekimasuよ!03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
In addition to poor sourcing (this is self-published), this info does not make much sense. Yes, sure, one can model a lot of proteins using I-TASSER and Swiss-model (those are automated modeling tools), but all these computationally generated models will be to some degree incorrect. And so what? Does this modeling help to solve or understand anything? My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
(Switching to notification in place of previous transclusion of a different talk page, which can be quite confusing.) Yug requests help with a template on characteristics of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS at Talk:Coronavirus disease/v2.0. Dekimasuよ!17:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Name of article
Name is so odd it does not even show up in a Goggle search.....was very hard to fine this article.--Moxy🍁13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
”Novel coronavirus”/“2019 Nobel coronavirus” also pulls this up immediately. Maybe because there is a lag in Google algorithm updates, the full title does not go directly here yet. Dekimasuよ!10:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
We have another (extremely well-trafficked) article at Coronavirus, and that links here in the hatnote, so the problem would seem to be more with finding that page than with finding this one. Dekimasuよ!04:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Taxobox should skip Phylum, rather than "Incertae sedis"
The rank of Phylum isn't used for viruses! Viral taxonomy traditionally starts at the rank of Order (and a viral Order is basically the equivalent of an entire Domain for true organisms). A rank called Realm was recently proposed for viruses, above Order, but it has only one described taxon (which makes it essentially meaningless until there are two or more).
Sadly, the formatting of the Taxobox is a real B-word for viruses, and I'm having trouble figuring out how to remove the Phylum rank from said Taxobox. Could someone please help with this? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Add a structural model of SARS-CoV-2. The image I am sending was built in UCSF Chimera software from SARS-CoV-1 membrane (emdb 1423) and SARS-CoV-2 spike (pdb 6vsb). I put individual pieces of membrane on the surface of a sphere of diameter 100 nm and then fitted the SARS-CoV-2 spikes. It would be a good addition to the article since we don't have a current structural model of SARS-CoV-2 which can be improved further in the future when more knowledge about the virus is achieved.
I propose to change the text interpreting R_0 in the Epidemiology section, which currently says:
This means that each infection from the virus is expected to result in 1.4 to 3.9 new infections when no preventive measures are taken.
as follows:
This means that each infection from the virus is expected to result in 1.4 to 3.9 new infections in a population where all individuals are susceptible and where when no preventive measures are taken.
Motivation: At a later stage in the outbreak many of the contacts an infectious will have will be with either already infectious or recovered individual. Hence, an infectious individual will not cause as many secondary cases as in the beginning even though the R_0 of the disase/pathogen does not change. See also the part "...and can be thought of as the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number.
Part of the issue here is with the definition in question (R_0 is not a constant, so adding further qualifiers does not always add to what we know, and the article on basic reproduction numbers is linked for more info). At any rate, at the beginning of the outbreak we knew no one had immunity. Even now, it is not certain whether immunity persists over time, so the "motivation" aspect above may not be sufficient. But the qualifier you wanted to introduce seems warranted enough in terms of the studies that have tried to estimate R_0 to date, so I have added it. Dekimasuよ!05:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
"Coronavirus"
I think the colloquial tendency to call this virus simply "coronavirus" ought to be noted somewhere but I'm not sure how to do it. For example, the National Health Service website states: "COVID-19 is a new illness that can affect your lungs and airways. It's caused by a virus called coronavirus." [13] Obviously this usage is unhelpfully ambiguous with the actual family of coronaviruses and the distinction should be clarified, but it seems extremely common now. Discussing this point in this article could also help clear up some common misinformation like "coronavirus is just the common cold". —Nizolan(talk · c.)01:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
It is being tracked by health organisations everywhere. Please explain why you think that claim, added three minutes before I removed it, instantly became such a sacrosanct part of the article that you have blocked me from editing the article. J en mhh (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
That is a completely inadequate explanation for your malicious behaviour. Do you always block people from editing articles in this manner? J en mhh (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I was not driven by malice, J en mhh. I conflated between versions. I'm sorry for the distress caused by my error. El_C00:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no reason to include this information. There is absolutely no consensus that the virus was transmitted by pangolins and the sourcing is poor. DW is not a reputable source and the article contains multiple falsehoods. Cbpoofs (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you are in the right talk section here, but there are many studies listed in the "Reservoir" part of the article that support the wording we have, which does not state as a fact that pangolins are the intermediate reservoir. They include Viruses, Nature, a study out of China, and a study out of Texas. Dekimasuよ!02:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Pangolins
The article is confusing to the general readers, making a number of statements, including the false one of 99% identity and then the claim that pangolins are involved. It should be made clear independent scientists don't consider these (including the near-identity of the RBD sequence) to be proof that pangolins are the intermediate host. It should not be left to readers to infer what the scientific opinion is. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a term most likely not to be understood in context for general readers - I suggest some sort of 'common' nomenclature be put in parantheses beside the section heading. Links are fine, but there's nothing like having a short description immediately handy.50.111.45.197 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to say Thank You to whomever updated the disease name to reflect the fact it is a Strain of the virus that also caused the SARS outbreak. At least we get to read what the MSM refuses to tell the public. It is a Strain of the SARS Virus and traditionally "Covid-19" would be considered a more severe version of SARS and be named accordingly. The WHO refuse to tell the public it is an outbreak of SARS.
Colliric, this is not the same strain of virus as the SARS virus, albeit very similar. COVID-19 is actually a less severe version of SARS, and the WHO is probably telling the truth. Instead of suspecting international organizations, you might want to do your research first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtail286 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Add HCoV-19 as another name
Since HCoV-19 (human coronavirus 2019) is already listed as a synonym for SARS-CoV-2, shouldn't it be added in the lead paragraph as another name for the coronavirus? In addition, the name HCoV-19 "distinguishes the virus from SARS-CoV and keeps it consistent with the WHO name of the disease it causes, COVID-19."[1]
The source cited here is a letter to the editor, not a separate study. If the term is not in widespread use then it shouldn't be included. It is closer to being a taxonomic synonym than being a common name, but as far as I can tell it is basically neither since there's no significant group of scientists that has adopted it. Dekimasuよ!10:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Editsemiprotected
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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.
Comment@Almaty: please could you provide some evidence for the proposal? Specifically that the organisations you mention above call the virus (as opposed to the disease) by the COVID-19 name? I'm inclined to Oppose this and call for a speedy close, as the name has been argued to death already, but if there's good evidence for a WP:COMMONNAME then please provide it. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose WHO is dumbing down in some of its public usage, presumably because it's worried about the long-term confusion between coronaviruses in general and SARS-CoV-2, but "SARS-CoV-2" is in common usage in many places, by individuals and organisations that dislike ambiguity and consider the world's population to not being completely incapable of learning. It's too early to propose replacing a scientific name by a superfluously repetitive redundant name. Boud (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we do the same thing with all the other virus like, Zika virus to ZIKV, Ebola virus to EBOV, Dengue virus to DENV, Chinkungunya virus to CHIKV, Japanese encephalitis virus to JEV, Measles virus to MeV, Varicella Zoster virus to VZV, Mumps virus to MuV, Rubella virus to RuV, Yellow fever virus to YFV, West Nile virus to WNV, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus to SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus to MERS-CoV, and etc, we can go on forever with this. —— Hushskyliner (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment - continuing like this, we should make this recursive, e.g. the COVID-19-VID virus, the coronavirus-disease-2019 virus-disease virus, or the COVID-19-VID-VID virus. And so on. Boud (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Calling the SARS-CoV-2 as COVID-19 virus is very redundant and repetitive not to mention it's dumbing down the official name of the virus. Does Coronavirus disease 2019 virus sound good to you perhaps we can go on like calling it COVID-19 VID disease virus or even SARS-CoV-2 disease virus. Think of this before finalizing the renaming the virus. Hushskyliner (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the scientific name should be preferred. Searching for COVID already produces the result for the disease so no problem for uninformed users. It would be the same as calling HIV the AIDS virus. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose There is a scientific reason why diseases and their causative agents are differentiated, both in analysis and in name. For instance, it is quite possible that the rapid mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 leads to different strains, which have to be dealt separately in clinical practice, while essentially causing the same disease, COVID-19. Such is already the case with cancer (multiple hundreds of causes, with partially overlapping treatment regimens) and on the viral side, say, the different strains of Influenza A (influenza, sometimes caused by Haemophilus Influenzae, the bacterium, not the virus, at least commensally), HIV (AIDS, which by the way also has rare yet *completely* independent causative factors) and Hepatitis C (at least five different strains to my knowledge, which fail to respond to the same medication; the effective medications for each having widely differing clinical profiles). Diseases and their causative factors are separate things, and shouldn't be mixed together -- which is precisely why we *have* these two different, WHO-sanctioned names here as well. Oh, and the current name also highlights the connetion with the first coronavirus in the family identified. Oh, and rumour tells me there are already two separate strains of *this* *very* *virus* in circulation, with separate lethality rates, so that we quite probably have to have separate pages for them anyways, in the future. Decoy (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Viral (and bacterial) articles should maintain their full scientific name as the page name to enable differentiation with similar illness or other strains. Additionally the suggested name would only relevant for the disease, not the virus that causes the disease. Clyde1998 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose. This is getting plenty of publication in journals and other scientific literature. What they call it, not what ignorant journalists call it, is what matters. The only potentially relevant publications that you mentioned are popular resources from WHO etc., and as Boud notes, they care more about dumbing down for the sake of those whose safety is in danger than they do being scholarly and precise. They're great for advising people how to behave, but not for determining the name that's favoured by reliable sources in the field. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose The WHO very, very clearly and explicitly states the official names of the virus and the disease [14]. The virus is "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" abbreviated as SARS-CoV-2, the disease is "coronavirus disease", abbreviated as COVID-19, and there is literally no room for discussion, so I'm not sure why this was even proposed. It's pretty straightforward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.57.177 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
there will be strong opinions about this, and I recognise the pedant in myself that says we shouldn’t use the non technical name. However, the technical name is very very easily confused with SARS, so we should use what is emerging as the common name. —49.195.179.13 (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
what name?
The following are a couple of references to the term "COVID-19 virus".
WHO : Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public[1]
The Guardian : Coronavirus facts: is there a cure and what is the mortality rate of the virus?[2]
As of 11:40 Sunday 15 March 2020 UT a search on google for "covid-19 virus" (with the quotes) gives 253 results[3]
however:
As of 11:42 Sunday 15 March 2020 UT a search on google for "covid-19 coronavirus" (with the quotes) gives 259 results[4]
but some of those are for Covid-19 Coronavirus, some Covid-19 (Coronavirus) and others Covid-19 (Coronavirus 2019)
As of 12:06 Sunday 15 March 2020 UT a search on google for "SARS-CoV-2 virus" (with the quotes) gives 194 results[5]
As of 12:15 Sunday 15 March 2020 UT a search on google for "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (with the quotes) gives 141 results [6]
At about 12:30 the counts had changed to "covid-19 virus" 259; "covid-19 coronavirus" 260; "SARS-CoV-2 virus" 259; "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" 147
My opinion is that there is not yet a clear winner in the popular name stakes. However in their announcement of the official name "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2", the WHO do state 'WHO has begun referring to the virus as “the virus responsible for COVID-19” or “the COVID-19 virus” when communicating with the public.'[7]
On balance I did support the name change.
However more important than the name change is that there should be page redirects from each of the commonly occuring names for the virus.
^"WHO Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public". WHO. World Health Organisation. 2020. Archived from the original on 2020-03-15. Retrieved 15 March 2020. If you are too close, you can breathe in the droplets, including the COVID-19 virus if the person coughing has the disease.
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.
I want to clarify that whether SHC014-CoV has any connection with COVID-19 virus. When I checked about SHC014-CoV in ICTV website, I couldn't get any information regarding it. Abishe (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Please change "The first known infections from the SARS-CoV-2 strain were discovered in Wuhan, China.[11] The original source of viral transmission to humans and when the strain became pathogenic remains unclear,[31][32][33][34] but the strain is known to have a natural origin.[34]" to "The first known infections from the SARS-CoV-2 strain were discovered in Wuhan, China.[11] The original source of viral transmission to humans and when the strain became pathogenic remains unclear,[31][32][33][34] but it is most probable that the strain has a natural origin.[34]" because the the article by Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, et al. does not definitively rule out creation or modification in a laboratory, but rather stresses it is most likely natural and that laboratory scenarios are not likely. The article states, "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus" and "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible". Am4000 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that the first one sounds ok with me, but I have a problem with saying "we do not believe" as this is an Encyclopedia, not doing any original research. However, I don't know the topic well enough to ok the first one though. DarthFlappy (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see my response in the section below. I think the best option is actually to remove the reference to natural origin entirely, which is how the article was until the day before yesterday. There are no reputable reliable scientific sources I am aware of that imply otherwise. Dekimasuよ!03:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I oppose the above change. There are widespread sources stating this is believed to originate in Wuhuan. This is a POV edit. Ignore it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Covid-19 is likely to have originated in a wet market. In a wet market live animals are slaughtered and sold for consumption. The wet markets came about to inhibit starvation of millions of people under communist rule. In the wet markets, of which there are many in the world, cages are stacked one above the other. Animals in the lower cages are often soaked in bodily fluids excreted from animals above them. That is how viruses can jump from one animal to another. If the animal is slaughtered and sold for consumption the virus has an evolutionary opportunity to jump the species barrier. Animal rights advocated oppose such practices. Many viruses that affect humans have their evolutionary origins in animals. Influenza comes from birds and pigs. HIV/AIDS from chimpanzees. Ebola likely came from bats. There is some evidence Covid-19 came from a bat via a pangolin before infecting a human. R A Curtis BSc (BioSc) (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
"Large numbers and varieties of these wild game mammals in overcrowded cages and the lack of biosecurity measures in wet markets allowed the jumping of this novel virus from animals to human. (...) Coronaviruses are well known to undergo genetic recombination, which may lead to new genotypes and outbreaks. The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb". Source: Cheng, VC (Oct 2007). "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infection". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 20(4): 660–94. doi:10.1128/CMR.00023-07.
"27 (66%) patients had direct exposure to Huanan seafood market (figure 1B). Market exposure was similar between the patients with ICU care (nine [69%]) and those with non-ICU care (18 [64%]". The Lancet [15]
"Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market. (...) Most patients worked at or lived around the local Huanan seafood wholesale market, where live animals were also on sale.". The Lancet [16]
"In December 2019, there was an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, Hubei province in China, with an epidemiological link to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market where there was also sale of live animals." International Journal of Infectious Diseases [17]
"In 2003, Guan et al. isolatedSARS-CoVs from Himalayan palm civets and two other species in a live-animal market in Guangdong,". Wang M, Hu Z. Bats as animal reservoirs for the SARS coronavirus: hypothesis proved after 10 years of virus hunting. Virol Sin 2013; 28: 315–17 [18]
"China CDC today released more information about environmental sampling in the seafood market at the center of the outbreak, which also sold a variety of live animals, including several wildlife species. Of 585 samples, 33 had evidence of 2019-nCoV, according to Xinhua, China' state news agency.Of the 33 positive samples, 31 were from the market's western zone, where wildlife booths were concentrated, which officials said adds evidence of potential wildlife source." [19]
I was also referring to /Archive 4#Discussion of a source., which eventually resulted in a third editor removing any claims that the virus came from the wet market. We now know there were cases at least as early as November 17, superseding some of the cites listed above, and studies would have to show a connection at that time. Any cites here that predate the existence of this virus are probably not possible to use in support of the idea that the virus came from the wet market. On balance, I am not sure readding material about the wet market is preferable, unless it is information that unquestionably links the origin of the virus to the wet market. Dekimasuよ!16:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If numerous WP:RS says straight away about "epidemiological link to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market" then this is precisely what should be reported in the article and we cannot exclude that because there were some cases in November, which is simply WP:OR. Note I'm not arguing for saying anything about "origin" but merely stick to what the sources say. Cloud200 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about OR. I'm talking about later, arguably reliable sources that directly contradicted the claims made in earlier articles. Note that I was basically defending including a reference to the market in the earlier discussion, along with a phrase noting that other sources differ. I am not sure what the upshot of this discussion is, however, since your addition was to an article from 2007 that clearly cannot be evidence for anything related to the current virus strain. What are you suggesting we do? (I would also have turned down the original edit request, but in fact, the request was answered already.) Dekimasuよ!18:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: #1 (an editor reverting me in order to readd a note that the link to the market was "debunked"), #2 (a different editor removing wet market references with the edit summary "Deleted drama, speculation, and incorrect info about origin"; that stuck, a month ago). Dekimasuよ!18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, one thing for sure is that it was in no way "debunked". There's strong evidence that the epidemics escalation started in the Wuhan wet market, it's supported by at least 4 scientific articles and I don't think anyone can argue with this. There's one scientific article that says that the epidemics "could have" been brought to the wet market from outside (with the evidence being circumstantial). And there's this 2007 article that warns that the wet markets will eventually result in yet another (after SARS, MARS etc) outbreak of mutated zoogenic virus. First two claims should be in the article, the last I agree cannot be included here until it's established with confidence that the epidemics did start in the market (but can be included in article on wet markets for example). If you think this makes sense, we can work on exact wording. 20:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
None of the sources cited above claim that COVID-19 is likely to have originated in a wet market. At best, they can support a claim that "COVID-19 could have potentially originated in a wet market." Including a sentence describing a wet market here would be redundant, it can just be wiki-linked to. Enivid (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Large number of initial infections (66%) have been traced to Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.[1][2][3] Majority of environmental samples taken on the market's western zone specialized in wildlife trade tested positively on SARS-CoV-2.[4] Because wet markets have been previously suggested as suitable for inter-species transmission and recombination of coronaviruses,[5][6] it has been also suggested that the strain might have originated from the Huanan market.[7][8] Genetic evidence is however inconclusive and other research indicates that the virus might have been brought by people visiting the market, which only facilitated rapid expansion of the infections.[9]
This was hard for me to look at quickly because the references do not display in a way that is very easy to review. Now that it was added to the article, I have seen that some of the sources are copies of things already used. I integrated the text into the first paragraph of the reservoir section. My guess is that the only objection will remain the discussion of how much to discuss wet markets. However, this article is about this virus, and the section is about where the virus came from. Since this article is not about the general effects of wet markets, I reduced that portion of the addition substantially. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Dekimasuよ!13:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to have the phrase "and most journalists" removed from the sentence "The general public often call both the virus and the disease "coronavirus", but scientists and most journalists typically use more precise terms."
The changed sentence would read ""The general public often call both the virus and the disease "coronavirus", but scientists typically use more precise terms."
Why? 1. The phrase is based on the presumption that all journalists aspire to certain standards and work to meet them. I consider that unlikely because the definition of journalist varies greatly, and most readers, including myself, have seen multiple incorrect statements made by journalists.
2. The difference between a virus and a disease is not the domain of journalism. These are scientific (and medical?) words. (Note: If journalists do, in fact, communicate to the public that there is a difference in the terms, well and good. But, whether they do or not, the difference still exists.) OKRickety (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I would have to agree the logic of that argument. As a minimum, 'most' should go since that implies a measurement that hasn't been made AFIK. I suggest too that these are hand-waving noise words: the distinction between usages is clearer if they are omitted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Asymptomatic spread worse than thought -- needs to be updated urgently
"We now know that asymptomatic transmission likely [plays] an important role in spreading this virus," said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Osterholm added that it's "absolutely clear" that asymptomatic infection "surely can fuel a pandemic like this in a way that's going to make it very difficult to control."
In an article two weeks ago in the New England Journal of Medicine, Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, expressed concern about the spread of the disease by people who haven't yet developed symptoms, or who are only a bit sick.
"There is also strong evidence that it can be transmitted by people who are just mildly ill or even presymptomatic. That means COVID-19 will be much harder to contain than the Middle East respiratory syndrome or severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which were spread much less efficiently and only by symptomatic people," he wrote, using the scientific word for the disease caused by the virus.
'Prolonged, unprotected contact' led to first known person-to-person coronavirus transmission in US, study says
Others agree that people without serious symptoms play a substantial role in the spread of the new coronavirus.
"Asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic transmission are a major factor in transmission for Covid-19," said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and longtime adviser to the CDC. "They're going to be the drivers of spread in the community."
Osterholm urged public officials to be clearer about the way the virus is spread.
"the best-fitting model has a reporting delay of 9 days from initial infectiousness to confirmation; in contrast line-list data for the same 10–23 January period indicates an average 6.6 day delay from initial manifestation of symptoms to confirmation (17). This discrepancy suggests pre-symptomatic shedding may be typical among documented infections."
Source: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/science.abb3221Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
My main qualm with overemphasis on the Science study is that the WHO guidance (and guidance from a large range of other organizations to this point) is based upon direct observation, while the study is a mathematical model. There are other variables that could create the same results, up to and including the presence of a considerable number of symptomatic people who didn't seek or receive medical attention. The study does not distinguish between asymptomatic and mild cases of infection; in fact it simply calls the cases "undocumented" rather than "asymptomatic". When it writes that the "high proportion of undocumented infections, many of whom were likely not severely symptomatic" were involved, it is specifically not making such a claim. Dekimasuよ!10:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
"Coronavirus patients with mild symptoms are most infectious within a week of contracting the disease but are unlikely to pass the virus on after 10 days, German researchers have revealed. In the study of just nine patients - one of the first to map when people actively transmit the illness to others - scientists found that patients with mild symptoms emit extremely high amounts of the virus at an early stage of their infection. “Peak shedding” - when a person with Covid-19 is most infectious - typically occurs within five days of picking up the disease, and patients emit 1,000 times more virus than during peak shedding of a Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome) infection. This very high rate helps to explain why the virus has spread so rapidly across the globe." Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/patients-mild-coronavirus-symptoms-may-highly-infectious-study/ Original scientific paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20030502v1. Seems to be some debate and this paper is not yet peer-reviewed so treat with caution, but very important if correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.69.100 (talk • contribs)
"Presymptomatic", "asymptomatic", and "exhibiting mild symptoms" are not synonymous, so we have to be even more careful with this. No one has ever implied that people with mild symptoms are incapable of infecting others. Dekimasuよ!15:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, yesterday night I added information about the natural origin of the virus, based on a recent research publication, but shortly afterwards Dekimasu removed this. I would like to explain the reason for my edit.
In this version of the SARS virus article, I read a sentence about the origin of SARS-CoV 2, but it did of course not belong there, so I decided to transfer this to this place.
I discovered this article already said, "the strain is known to have a natural origin", but I thought expansion would be helpful, so I did not bluntly copy the text from the other article, but merge both texts.
I realized that the source of the transferred text was a summary (in a press release) of the scientific article already mentioned here as a source, but I thought the summary might be more understandable for many readers, so adding this link would still be useful. In other words, I supposed that footnotes can serve as a service for readers desiring more information, but it appears that they are seen as source references here only. (Interestingly, Dekimasu used the same press release source in an earlier edit.) The Wikipedia guideline mentions the possibility of adding a 'lay summary' parameter to the main reference, however, so perhaps I should try that.
I thought the finding that the virus has a natural origin is important enough to tell this in a separate sentence, not in a half sentence. Therefore: "The origin is almost certainly natural, not artificial as some rumours held." Mentioning the rumours and discarding them with italics seemed important to me to make very clear those rumours are not true. With the words "almost certainly" I thought I was going in fact a little further than the authors of the Nature article, which used the word "improbable" (but who were more definite in their lead section, saying "Our analyses clearly show ..." there) and gave several reasons to see "Selection during passage" (in cell culture or animal passage) as "unlikely". They concluded "it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin [including inadvertent laboratory release] described here" but "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible". (Of course, conspiracy theories about the virus also lack any credibility because there would be no rationale for such actions, even the most despisable government would not do such a thing because the danger it would form to the government itself. But inadvertent lab releases did happen in the past. Perhaps it comes down to the interpretation of the word 'articial'.)
Hopefully I can clear this up. First, the same information was added to this article twice in the same day yesterday–because the same editor added the same text both to this article and at the place you found it. When it was added here I changed its location in the article, integrated it into the existing text, then removed the press release 3 minutes later (I did not use the source myself; I removed it as soon as I noticed what it was). The second time, it had already been integrated, so I mostly undid your edit–that is, I treated it as already merged, not a new merge. The source itself was already incorporated into the article, because it had been up on Virological for weeks and we had been using it as a source here. Press releases do not satisfy WP:MEDRS and tend toward the promotional.
In my explanation of removing the "rumors" wording, I noted WP:WIKIVOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." I do not think it is necessary to encourage discussion of conspiracy theories in the article such as rumors that the virus was constructed. No reputable scientific sources I am aware of have ever claimed the virus was constructed, with the exception of a single retracted preprint. This has been discussed previously in the talk page archives and insertion of such rumors was suggested (not by me) as an indication that the article might require extended confirmed protection.
Primarily, unnecessary emphasis on the basically undisputed natural origin of the virus serves to magnify any claims that it is not. For example, we would not add "Contrary to rumor, Queen Elizabeth is not a lizard person" to her article even though there is such a conspiracy theory. To be honest, I think removing the sentence on natural origins would still be the best option, because without such a sentence the origin would be assumed to be natural, particularly given that we state in the lede it was a zoonosis and we have an extended section on the topic at "Reservoir". Dekimasuよ!02:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
You got me – I never realised that Queen Elizabeth could be a lizard person before you wrote about it. ;-) So after a second thought, I agree with your removal of the assertion that the virus is not artificial and the reference to rumours. Also I did not realize that the word "articial" was less suitable for (natural) "adaptation to passage in cell culture", deemed in the Nature article as very unlikely (implausible) but not impossible.
I also understand that you even removed "The origin is natural". As the statement about zoonosis and most of the Reservoir section only tell something about the origin and not about the transmission from its origin to humans, I do however suggest to expand the phrase "when the strain became pathogenic remains unclear" a bit, with the explanation that the virus became either virulent when it was still in another animal or it adapted after the first transmission to a human. Implicitly that would tell the readers about the available natural origin without using the word. Bever (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I suppose you mean this edit. That was not by me – which one could think after your remark – but by Drbogdan, who possibly did not see this discussion.
Also I do not think it is fair to describe the statement "On 17 March 2020, scientists reported that the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus originated naturally, and not otherwise" as "POV". Dekimasu above calls it unnecessary and it could have the opposite effect from what was meant by it, but it is still reflecting scientific consensus, that is not the problem. Bever (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
1. Which one is the capsid of the Coronavirus SARS-Cov-2 ?
Various sources say coronavirus has helical capsid. But in any diagram I could not find a capsid beneath the envelop. Can anybody upload a diagram showing which is/ are the helicalcapsid?
Regards
RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The SARS-CoV-2 virus strain was previously known by the provisional name 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).[12][13][14] The strain was first discovered in Wuhan, China, so it is sometimes referred to as the "Wuhan virus"[15] or "Wuhan coronavirus".[16][17][18][19] Because the World Health Organization discourages the use of names based upon locations,[10][20][21] it sometimes refers to the virus as "the virus responsible for COVID-19" or "the COVID-19 virus" in public health communications.[23] The general public often call both the virus and the disease "coronavirus", but scientists typically use more precise terms.[24]
The term SARS-COV-2 was officially named on February 11, 2020 by the International Committee of Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). This is name of the of the virus that is responsible for the Corona Virus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19). The World Health Organization (WHO) officially named it COVID-19 to help differentiate between the original SARS virus (SARS-COV) and the novel virus SARS-COV-2. It is important to note these virus strains are similar but different.
Thanks, but this is not why the WHO named it how it did, and the cite does not state it that way. Though it's not clear from the source you're citing, WHO announced its name for the disease before ICTV made its announcement about the relationship to SARS. It is true that the new name was presented on February 11, but it's not clear that this is necessary to state in the article, and the subsection you are referring to doesn't exist at the moment. Dekimasuよ!04:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm just doing my last check before going to sleep over some covid-19 related wikis and I notice this one is suffering severe vandalism. To anyone with the powers to to so, please protect/semi-protect this page. Good night. Feelthhis (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I put in the request immediately; it's pretty cut-and-dried, but I still shouldn't do it myself since I'm clearly involved. Dekimasuよ!02:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Laboratory research - killed off at 20 deg C?
The Polish Minister of Health Szumowski did an interview of which a text version claims that he saidZwykle mówimy o sezonowości występowania wirusa, ale z tym wirusem mamy pierwszy raz do czynienia. Badania laboratoryjne wskazują, że przy 20 stopniach C. przestaje być aktywny. - roughly: We ordinarily talk about the seasonality of [a/the] virus, but with this virus, it's the first time. Laboratory research shows that at 20 deg C [it] stops being active.
Can anyone find some WP:MEDRS-reliable research giving a similar claim? He could easily have intended to talk about coronaviruses in general (does MERS have a seasonal pattern?) - the linguistic slip between "it/this specific virus" and "a/the virus of this sort in general" is easily missed, especially because in Polish people often leave off the grammatical subject; the listener/reader has to interpret the subject from the context. I'm not going to listen to the whole video to find out, since that wouldn't count as a source anyway. What's important is what info we really know, or whether it's just a reasonable guess that warmer weather will weaken the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. I've heard (f2f chat) this rumour from other folk sources too. Boud (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Boud, there is a recent article that notes of specific enzymes, "Like all proteins, SARS-CoV 3CLpro undergoes thermal denaturation at elevated temperatures, hence the increases in the catalytic efficiency of the protease with increasing temperature might be compromised by the competing effects of the enzyme denaturation at high temperature." There is also a graph here related to the spike protein and luciferase at high temperatures (body temp and higher). I don't see anything about 20C or the overall activity of the virus in normal environmental conditions. Dekimasuよ!20:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dekimasu: Thanks: more likely it was an off-the-cuff remark rather than a serious claim. I think that what would be needed would be the equivalent of what right now is ref [30] = https://doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMc2004973, repeated for different temperatures/humidities/pressures covering a fair range of surface temperatures of typical living conditions from around the world, to answer the question in a wide sense; or more specifically just trying e.g. from 5 deg C to 45 deg C might be enough to test the hypothesis that "warm/hot/extremely-hot weather kills off SARS-CoV-2". Boud (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Survivability in the environment
This virus will have levels of tolerance to environmental factors such as ultraviolet light, temperature, and humidity. Beyond those levels, when exposed for a period of time, the virus will be destroyed. It would be great to have a section in this article that covers what is currently known about the survivability of this virus. FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The article does not list the molecular mass of the fully assembled virus.
I mentions it size but not the mass. It is an egregious omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.160.89 (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
If there is a source that says something about this, feel free to let us know. If no one has published the information in their research, then it's probably an indication that others don't find the omission egregious. Dekimasuよ!01:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Clarifications needed
Please clarify use of ACE2 in second paragraph of Structural biology. It seems that it is first used as a enzyme name and later as its receptor when describing virus'es affinity? Miwip (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The article should mention the recent findings that support the existence of at least two strains of SARS-CoV-2, termed the "L" and "S" strains. Here is the academic article that discovered the divergence: Tang, Xiaolu; Wu, Changcheng; Li, Xiang; Song, Yuhe; Yao, Xinmin; Wu, Xinkai; Duan, Yuange; Zhang, Hong; Wang, Yirong; Qian, Zhaohui; Cui, Jie; Lu, Jian. "On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2". National Science Review. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaa036.
Here are some secondary sources documenting this finding:
We will have to keep an eye on this one. The claim is out there, yes. However, the "strain" terminology used here is very imprecise/incorrect (SARS-CoV-2 itself is a single strain according to a normal definition), and there has already been quite a bit of criticism of this paper. As you can see from the article, Nextstrain shows a large number of genomes with small differences. This paper seems to be stating that there is a difference in transmissibility on the basis of one small change, but given that there is a good deal of skepticism about this, I think it is best that we wait for actual WP:MEDRS-compliant sources rather than relying upon generalist news sources that may be misinterpreting the results. There may be some arbitrariness in their definitions. My guess is that this will not pan out, but I will stay up to date on it. Dekimasuよ!15:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The criticism isn't about the existence of the S and L types, but their interpretation. I think however we should wait and see if other people agree with their findings. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, the study authors are the ones who made up the terms "S" and "L". As you say, the reactions are that it is fairly clear that there are multiple lineages, and some are older than others. But this is always true no matter what lineages are in question, in any organism. What the authors are speculating is that the "S" and "L" lineages represent different transmission and "aggressiveness" patterns–that is, they are claiming that one strain is being selected for, and that this indicates that it is less virulent (though they are not using that term). This could be true, or the pattern could be part of random chance. For instance, we wouldn't speculate that people named "Jones" had different characteristics from people named "Smith" because "Smith" has come to be a more common name.
However, this isn't so much the place to be debating the findings among ourselves. As you said, the main question is whether other reliable sources agree with, disagree with, or ignore this study. Dekimasuよ!14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree in principle with what has been said already about waiting for a reliable source. Unfortunately there is a fake news item {ok, probably many fake news items] circulating on social media about a "new deadly strain". Do we have any responsibility to counteract this sort of silliness? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a fair point too. In many cases I agree that we do have such a responsibility. But I still think in this case the best option for the time being is to wait for sources to make the important points (either for or against the study) for us. Here, the original study argues that the "new deadly strain" basically went away by mid-January, so if the study does make it into the article, it should not be difficult to counteract that part of the rumor. However, there's only so much that can be done on that front; disputing the claim here is just as likely to be fodder for the rumor mill. I am still unsure where this would even be added to the article. Under taxonomy, even though their argument is not taxonomically sound? Under epidemiology, near the basic reproduction number discussion, even though it's unclear what they actually meant by "aggressive"? I suppose subsuming the S/L discussion into the sentence on basic reproduction number estimates would be possible, but that's close to WP:SYNTH. Dekimasuよ!15:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Virological has a thread up on this paper in which a team from the University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research suggest retraction, with an actual analysis similar to some of the points given above. They conclude, "Given these flaws, we believe that Tang et al. should retract their paper, as the claims made in it are clearly unfounded and risk spreading dangerous misinformation at a crucial time in the outbreak." (Still not MEDRS.) In the same way we avoided the Indian HIV paper and (to a large extent) the snakes paper, I think this shows it's good that we have avoided this so far. Apparently the authors of the Chinese study are going to engage with the criticism in follow-ups at National Science Review, so hopefully this will become clearer soon and it will also become more evident whether we really need a debunking sentence in the article. Dekimasuよ!03:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Similar thread from Trevor Bedford (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/University of Washington) with similar criticisms where he writes, "Please consider this thread to be a public peer review of this work." Again, not MEDRS, but helpful for our decision-making process. Excerpt: "Generally, the expectation among virologists is that a random single amino acid change will have little impact on virus behavior. My 'null' model would be that this mutation just happened to occur on an early branch on the tree and any 'impact' is due solely to epidemiology.... Any differences in apparent severity between these two genetic variants are most likely due to sampling of market-associated severe cases in Wuhan and missing the bulk of mild cases in this setting.... In summary, I don't think the strong conclusions of the manuscript are warranted. We will monitor these two genetic variants, but I see no reason to conclude they have important functional significance at this point." Dekimasuよ!06:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
There are up to 11 mutations, but these do not actually constitute strains. There is only very little indication that they are functionally different. Newspapers might call them strains, but Nextstrain does not and would not. Evidence of genetic diversity is not the same thing as having "8 strains". If medical/scientific sources use that sort of language, we can of course revisit this, but the article itself is already on a single strain of the overarching virus species, as noted above. Dekimasuよ!14:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
SARS-CoV2 life cycle diagram
Diagram
Hello! Professors from the University of the Basque Country have made public this diagram of the life cycle of SARS-CoV2 virus. Yesterday I added to the article, because it is a high quality image, but @Dekimasu: deleted it. I would like to have another opinion about this, because I think this image is really interesting and well done. -Theklan (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I wrote: "this is great, but I am not convinced that it satisfies the originality clause of WP:IUP#Diagrams and other images (see Figure 1 from the Nature article), and it is based upon SARS-CoV, not SARS-CoV-2 (the Nature article is from 2016)." The diagram this is based upon is here, and my primary concern is whether this constitutes an original image. As for whether the content is correct in the case of SARS-CoV-2, that is unclear. Our article points out that studies indicate SARS-CoV-2 does not only use the ACE2 receptor for cell entry. Although that is clearly the best-known way it enters the cell, it also seems to use BSG. I am also unsure of how this shows unzipping taking place only after entry. Doesn't uncoating take place at the point of entry to the cell? Dekimasuよ!10:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Dear @Dekimasu: Regarding to your first question about the originality of the work. One of the sources that we have used and the most important in terms of content has been the one that we reference. But the present work does not mimic the content or the aesthetic. Aesthetics is very different with respect to various graphic resources such as color (we have used a totally different palette), format and composition (given the needs of what we wanted to show, we needed a format that would help the viewer to see the flow of information from a simpler and more orderly way). On the other hand, all the elements and actions have been labeled in a different way. As for content and the elements shown, the graphic presentation is created based on the general knowledge of this virus and the commands of an expert in this field have been followed. The structure of the virus is different, all structural proteins show different shapes and HE proteins are included. As for the cycle itself, parts have been simplified, omitted and added. For example, the way the RNA is released into the cytoplasm and the nucleocapsid is dismantled. The replication and transcription steps have been greatly simplified to aid reading and information flow. The assembly is represented in another way and the maturation of the virus is explained. Parts that can draw attention in terms of their similarity are that we only have one virus in the endosome, when we could have many more, but this greatly simplifies the information and helps us to explain the graph. The order of the cycles that begins on the left and ends on the right may draw attention also, but this is the normal reading order that we have by culture and that we should not change. On the other hand, the elements that appear in the translation of polyproteins and replication-transcription complex, we decided to keep them similar to have the same visual language. And elements such as receptors or RNA-s, golgi apparatus, endoplasmatic reticulum or nucleus, are classic elements that are represented in this way in many graphs, therefore we cannot attribute them to a specific graph.
As for your second consideration: if the the information represented is correct or not. As I comment the graph is based on general information about the virus, and not on a specific article or research (you can know read the leyend that we have already translate to english). We wanted to make an approximation with a graph that shows most of the elements involved with a good quality, easy to understand and well ordenized and offer it to all the research community that is working in this area. Our intention is that it serves as a tool for new visualizations based on new discoveries, the graph is in a svg format and anybody could change it to explain his/her new descoveries or thoughts. We just wanted to offer this tool for scientific communication. Best regards. Vega — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vega asensio (talk • contribs) 09:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
There are many things to consider here, and I don't think that the question of whether the image is too derivative can be resolved between the two of us, so I hope there will be more comments. I do believe the image is informative and I appreciate your efforts in making it. (Please also note that the way you have termed your reply here might be understood to indicate that you are using a shared account, which is not allowed.) However, I wanted to point out your mention of HE proteins. My understanding is that both strains of SARSr-CoV do not encode HE proteins (see this). Dekimasuよ!07:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Lede rewrite
@Dekimasu: yo! Hope you're well. I re-rewrote the lede. i opened this discussion, so if I need to re-re-rewrite it, we can discuss it here first.
I took my previous rewrite and dropped the COVID-19-related info. I don't know which parts of that copied content from that article, so I still included it in the edit's summary. I've also added some info from there that stood out to me. Like my initial rewrite, this one removed anything not in the article body.
I plan for the lede to mention the polybasic cleavage site, but I need to read the sources and write, in the article body, a brief explanation of what it is (and maybe how it contributes to virulence?). Tangentially, I recognized influenza A virus as a more closely related subject but went with Rotavirus because it's a FA. I didn't find FA on viral species/strain (alas); next time, I'll dig into the GAs and see what pops up there. Thanks for all your hard work on this article! Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
We appreciate the effort, but it is not clear why a full lede rewrite is necessary to begin with. Additionally, the lead rewrite is still primary about COVID-19 cases, which does not even concern this article, is much less concise, and also removes well-sourced naming information from the prior lede without reason. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia has a history of following me around, filing bogus SPI reports, insulting me, and reverting my edits to "get even". Though I'd rather we keep this discussion from veering off-topic. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a significant bending of the truth. You know that SPI report wasn't intentionally bogus. Architect 314, a troll who imitates users who are blocked for edit warring created a sockpuppet pretending to be you, and you reverted an edit by Dekimasu removing the bogus warning by the sock on Dekimasu's talk page, which made you look like you were operating it. I only intervened with your edit to the American-born Chinese page, as to write in the lead that the phrase is "is a contradictory term/misnomer" is clear POV Pushing. I did not interfere with any of your other edits. I don't think it can be considered hounding, as we are simply having a conversation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Multiple editors have affirmed that you are engaging in harassment/hounding toward me [20][21]. The SPI report was indeed malicious, because everyone knew it was fake, and yet you filed the report anyway hoping I would get in trouble. When your first report was immediately closed, you then filed a second report immediately after and then got scolded by an admin for even filing it. Your recent unexplained revert here with a provocative message telling me to not contribute is a continuation of this behavior where you are clearly pursuing a retaliatory agenda against me. In fact, your edit to this very comment I'm replying to where you changed "I interfered with your edit" to "I intervened with your edit" was perhaps a Fruedian slip on your behalf, and is indicative in itself. You've personally insulted me at least 7 times across different areas of Wikipedia, and have followed me to multiple articles, even after I've attempted to disengage with you. I am here to contribute, not bicker with you. Stop. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you, EvergreenFir and Hemiauchenia, for your support. I fully accept that my rewrite serves only as one small step in teaching our readers, regardless of their worldview or where they hail from, something they didn't know about the new virus. I certainly learned a lot combing the article body as I rewrote the lede! Stay well, everyone! Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 22:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Rather than just removing/reinstating the new lede, there are probably elements of both ledes that are worth retaining. It's important to think about what the new lede shows us (we should thank Rotideypoc41352 for bringing a fresh perspective). It's clear there was a reason for it: to better serve as a summary of the article, which is what the lede is supposed to do. If we don't like how the new lede turned out, then that might point us to underlying issues with the article. From my perspective, the new lede relies too much on the epidemiology of the virus. As the note in the epidemiology section states, it is intended to tell use more about the epidemiology of the virus than of how the current pandemic is progressing. In that regard, I don't find the case fatality rate or similar aspects of the pandemic to be the sorts of information that we should be trying to summarize in the lede. That data is time- and location-dependent, even if we mention it in the article, and if you look through the archives I think there are some discussions about why we removed that sort of information (it might also explain why there was a stray comment left below today [now removed] saying that we should have a chart of where the cases have taken place–the new setup seems to be misleading some readers into thinking this is more about the pandemic than it is). There are a few other objections that I have, such as how the new setup tells us what the virus does (cause COVID-19) before it tells us what it is (a single-stranded RNA virus), but the underlying point is whether the lede is serving as a summary of the text, and I have to agree that there are some ways in which the old lede wasn't. As for moving around the names, clearly what we have now is suboptimal and there should be a separate section like the one Feminist added. However, since there is a deadlock on what to do with that part of the article, leaving the status quo paragraph in the lede is probably the best option at the moment. Let's try to build on what is introduced or find compromises. Dekimasuよ!01:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
With the COVID-19 information removed and the names restored, I believe the current changes are an improvement to the original rewrite and a better middle ground, but as it is now it would flow better if the 1st and 4th paragraphs were combined. In it's current state it jumps from naming/general information -> classification and origin -> epidemiology -> naming/general information, which is more jarring than it was prior to this attempt to rewrite the lede, and comes across as less professional. This also fits WP:LEDE guidelines which indicate that alternative names should ideally be in the first paragraph. If someone wants to make a separate section I'm fine with that, but it should be something that expands on and presents a more detailed history on names in the lede/terminology, and not as a means to remove them. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Whereas I still think Rotideypoc41352 original re-write was a bridge too far, I've come around to appreciate the very useful edits done afterwards by both Dekimasu and by Symphony Regalia, and I join Dekimasu in thanking Rotideypoc41352 for bringing a fresh perspective. At the end of it all, with all of the contributions, the lead as it stands right now seems quite informative and useful. XavierItzm (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I realize perhaps neither my initial statement here nor my edit summary explicitly states the reason for my rewrite. So thank you, Dekimasu, for clearing it up here! I also appreciate the detail in your critique of my rewrite and in your edit summaries. Honestly, hard to disagree with someone who's demonstrated a clear understanding of your thoughts and then addresses them directly with solid reasoning. Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 14:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Link in the hatnote
Obviously the hatnote at the top of the page needs to have a link to COVID-19. We can easily do it by just linking the already existing word COVID-19, or we can add a completely new sentence, "For the actual disease caused by this virus, see COVID-19". Which would be better? RedSlash17:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Because no one would call COVID-19 "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2", it is still not clear to me that this should be linked in the hatnote. Hatnotes are in place for when readers are looking for an article with a similar title. I do not see how a reader could be confused in this case. COVID-19 is linked prominently in the second sentence of the article. Dekimasuよ!19:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's fairly likely that someone would end up at this article after being linked here from a search result or a link embedded in an article -- I don't feel strongly enough about it to spend the time to back this up with data, but it seems plausible to me. { }03:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
.svg){kind=small}
Done - 
Done ACE2 is the receptor. The papers are not talking about a receptor of ACE2. Thank you so much for pointing that out! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
