Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 166

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 164Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168→Archive 170

Calm down, think, then collaborate

If you do not budge on the first and second sentences of the second paragraph, I cannot work with you and please consider that as me being on permanent wiki break. It is not collaborative and you have a style of stifling and warring that may only just skirt the rules. But with this style enforced, the article is particularly unsafe. —Almaty (talk)

User:Almaty I started the prior RfC. 21:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
yes but you know what i am saying. You are stifling it by not recognising all the previous discussions and people look to you as a leader. Please be reasonable and recognise that at least 5 -10 editors are in favour of changing your wording, we need to respect that. Coughing sentence, sneezing and exhaling sentence. Otherwise the lead is unsafe with real world consequences. —Almaty (talk)
The majority of people are for the wording for the first sentence that Sandy suggested. You need to wait for the discussion on the second sentence to finish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
that’s because you opened the discussion unfairly, and can you please admit you have been selectively quoting and ignoring the ECDC. You have manipulated the discussion to the point where my position where it feels like I’m working under you is untenable. And I have had a media enquiry about this....... this is how important it is —Almaty (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
and that is the majority of the people who have cast a vote, which isn’t many. You have ignored many editors who wanted the issue resolved weeks ago. There’s another 5-10 who want the word exhale specifically, and others on the page who want qualifiers. Your wording is I repeat very unsafe with real world consequences —Almaty (talk)


Well we both agree that it is important. Trying to position simple breathing as a primarily method of spread is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
would u consider close contact? Do you not agree that the WHO And the ECDC say exhaling? They CDC don’t say it because they emphasise close contact because it can be transmitted by any form of exhalation. They emphasise close contact over coughing. Do you see how unsafe it is? One Wikipedian already admitted how he has changed his behaviour, due to the sources. —Almaty (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty I would support adding close contact yes. We could have "It may also be spread during close contact or from touching contaminated surfaces and then touching one's face." as the second sentence. Let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

close contact is the primary method if you want to call it that. Primary is the droplets, a possible case is it didn’t properly self isolate from others in the home because he thought it was only transmitted when coughing. It is transmitted via exhalation as well. So he held onto his cough whilst around others and then transmitted to his close contacts. Literally. That’s how unsafe it is in the real world. —Almaty (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I’ve also heard of a possible case where they “went to the shops but didn’t cough on anyone” —Almaty (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Almaty Are you okay with that wording for the second sentence though? It may also spread by fecal oral. And there are details regarding how long it survives on surfaces. Not everything has to go in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

there needs to be a rapid, safe, demphasising of coughing. Surfaces is not important. Close contacts is important, exhalation is important. Because it emphasises what is known and what is true, as per the sources, repetitively. We can just say that it transmitted via respiratory droplets between people who are in close contact period as a consensable option. Then touch On the surfaces --49.195.179.13 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

How can you say "Surfaces is not important" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

there is an order. close contacts, (coughing sneezing exhaling) then the surfaces. close contacts and coughing if you must. people to focus on that first sentence. the first sentence needs to emphasise close contacts or exhaling. its not the same as surfaces, it's not a less important method. It's the method. I daresay that your edits denying this have already had likely real world consequences and I have evidence of this in my real life. not a joke. --Almaty (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC) theres also the case that was well publicised who got tested in Australia and then flew to new zealand. And had a positive test, reported in New Zealand But he didn't cough on anyone. --Almaty (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We do not use our personal experiences as references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
we dont and I haven’t attempted to on the page. But when either and both of us are in discussions with the media, it is prudent to recognise on our talk pages why, how and despite the disagreement we have to seem to come to somewhat of a resolution. If America centric. —-Almaty (talk)
ps those cases are complete bs off the top of my head. I have nothing to do with contact tracing in Australia. But we needed to move the discussion forward and as a doctor you clearly needed several examples, as I would if I didn’t understand the concept. —Almaty (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes of course this disease can spread in a bunch of ways. I imagine we all accept that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

May as well just be honest

There is disagreement as to whether the virus spreads via coughing only, or exhalation in general.

Many Wikipedians agree that exhalation in general is in the WHO, CDC and ECDC sources. 

Almaty (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
but other than our unproductive edit warring, and edit warring by proxy, surely we both agree that there is not enough emphasis on the droplets and too much on the surfaces. __Almaty (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
No User:Almaty that is not the disagreement. The question is do we present the most common method of spread as mentioned by WHO and the CDC first and present breathing lower as a less key method. Or do we present simple breathing as a primary method even though none of the sources appear to do so, and incorrectly present COVID19 as an airborne disease. This will trigger the general public to use all the N95 masks (when no mask or a simple surgical mask is enough for the general public, together or course with social isolation). Presenting this as airborne will mean that health care providers will not have N95s for situations that need them (ie intubation) as the general public will use them all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
With respect to respiratory droplets, we do mention them first and say that they are primary. So we already give them more weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
we can certainly say that it is believed not to be airborne, and emphasize that. I understand those concerns, and yes the PPE will run out I don’t trust any of our governments plans on that One. That is bad but even as a person who sees patients day in day out without PPE, your chance of dying is likely to be less than 0.1%.

Also the public can’t get n95 masks here, they’re not available and they may have been banned from them. But what we can do is get them to distance, we can it is happening, and it’s cos people are now scared. I am coming to this from a public health perspective, and you a clinical Ed physician perspective, so we need to recognise our professional roles and interest in this. what I am trying to reinforce with exhalation is not airborne, it is that people need to be lockdown on virtually all of our countries. As they are, kinda. At the moment tho there’s lots of breaches is not happening, and I suspect a minor part of the issue is people not getting the exhalation part. We say Option. 3b, including exhalation, that has both effects, and then I’m very happy to include a second sentence that the virus is not believed to be airborne immediately after. Then the surfaces. —Almaty (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC) I would support as the first sentence "The virus is typically spread from one person to another during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced during coughing." In line with this.[1]

User:Almaty how about the second lines says "Respiratory droplets may also be generated by simple breathing but the disease is not airborne."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
getting there but why can’t we say simple exhalation, is this a linguistic thing? People know exhale.... and it’s only exhale.... obv. I don’t want to synth the sources. —Almaty (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Breathing is made up of inhalation and exhalation. Those two terms are less understood than breathing. Many people who read our articles speak English as a second language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Respiratory droplets may also be generated by simple breathing but the disease is not airborne. This is precise and explains why wearing face masks works. As to why can’t we say simple exhalation Hello User:Almaty, may I share my thought with you? I do believe coughing and sneezing are the primary ways of transmission. I don't think simply exhalation can spread the virus. If you read acute severe asthma, you will know that even if someone is undergoing severe asthma which is a severely narrowed trachea, one can still breathe. Taken together, I think coughing and speak loundly are the leading transmission paths for respiratory droplets. ( Transmission risk from "Speak loud and clear" is secondary to that of coughing. Coughing is the body's reflex to expel the virus. Coughing is of the highest risk.) Oversimplification --exhalation or any sort of stuffs like that-- of complex problems is not science in my opinion. Thank you for having me here! Best wishes. --Reciprocater (Talk) 17:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We currently have this over two sentences which is okay also I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • also few things = the PPE will run out. We have to accept this. Not just n95, all of it. .
  • the best way for the PPE not to run out is if the public is on side and they distance. That is why I went from “no exhale” to “exhale” so stridently, as the public aren’t getting it. It is no consensus apart from to 3b, with the disputed tag to 3a. Sorry to be so harsh on you, but we’re coming from different perspectives and this is a public service. Not medical advice, but a public a service. Exhalation will come in, I think . Sorry I get your concerns. Not enough to not put the full. (Not hidden) statements of the CDC ECDC and who summarised. The r0 is to high, it’s going to go on for a year I think. So every distance counts with not overwhelming your ED. —Almaty (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • If you have concerns about public health better to use common rather than technical language to get the point across. "Exhale" simple means "breathing out". More people still supports 3a than 3b. But I do not consider either one ideal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ok.... done. No idea how to do the wiki politics esp with my IAR grandstanding b4, I was trying to rally the masses to support without forumshopping, may have better just done you and me lol. —Almaty (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please reconsider your position on COVID19 lead regarding transmission

Primum non nocere

Please take a more prudent position. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What ref says that simple breathing is a main method of spread? Ref says close contact and droplets via coughing. So do we currently and I support that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I share the concerns about Wikipedia's focus on coughing. The WHO says (under the heading "How does COVID-19 spread?"): "The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is important to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick."
So that's coughing, sneezing, speaking, sighing, singing near someone. SarahSV (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin but it is not airborne and WHO states verbatim "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." There is a full stop at the end of that sentence. There is a bunch of secondary way that this is spread I agree.
The CDC says The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person... Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet)... Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.
Once again YES there are secondary ways that this is spread. Not every possible secondary way needs to be in the lead. We need to be careful not to overemphasize these secondary ways such as simple breathing. We do not want people using N95 masks when they do not need them or we will run out and health care providers will be placed at risk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
James, I quoted the WHO above (bold added): "The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales." That doesn't mean it's airborne. No one is saying that. You can't edit articles to avoid people wanting to use masks. Just tell people what the high-quality MEDRS say. Otherwise they'll think if they avoid people who are coughing, they'll be okay and can continue to socialize. SarahSV (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Sarah the lead gives prominence to the primary method of spread which both the CDC and WHO support. The disease may also spread fecal oral. We have that in the body aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The quotation you keep referring to is in answer to the question "Can CoVID-19 be caught from a person who has no symptoms?". If you look above, under the question "How does COVID-19 spread?", you'll see People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is important to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick. (emphasis added). Nobody is saying it is airborne, and in fact the WHO answers that question on the linked page as well. However, to try and downplay how even breathing can spread it is irresponsible. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Why give the impression that only if you cough you can transmit the disease then? Primary transmission is through droplets. How those droplets are created is irrelevant. The lead should describe accurately the primary information without misleading. We might as well just say droplets rather than mislead with the rest of the sentence.

Also the same WHO page states: "WHO is assessing ongoing research on the ways COVID-19 is spread and will continue to share updated findings." so we should not give the impression that transmission routes are set in stone and leave a certain degree of uncertainty in the statements we make. Definitive statements in this case should be avoided or could be misleading. Evidence exists showing multiple transmission routes (also oro-fecal) and evidence of airborne transmission is being researched (see this interesting position paper (unfortunately in Italian) about PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations correlating with infections and acting as "carriers". --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto what are your thoughts on this sentence by WHO? "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It may as well be factual but research is ongoing. And even within the WHO page it must be placed in context. They place it in a lower more specific section of the page. Under the question "How does COVID-19 spread?" the answer is unequivocal and I will state it in full: People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is important to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick.
This is the standard of completeness and accuracy we would strive to reach in the lead IMHO. Additional details in the body and no panic buying of masks. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The CDC than highlights two may ways The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person... Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet)... Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.
Your thoughts on that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Once again after stating it spreads: "Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet)."
The context makes it very clear that close contact with the infected is at risk. This is what we should say to be complete "close contact within 6 feet and through droplets". Not cherrypick along the page.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy with "The virus is typically spread from one person to another during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced during coughing." for the first sentence. Right now we have it across two sentences. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a much better compromise. Already a huge step forward in clarity and accuracy.
I'll propose giving an indication of what "close" means and indicate "mainly" through droplets but it may not be necessary: "The virus is typically spread from one person to another during close contact (within about 2 meters) and mainly via respiratory droplets produced during coughing."--Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion the exact distance belongs in the body of the text. I think one "mainly" / "primarily" is enough.
Happy with this aswell "The virus is mainly spread from one person to another during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced during coughing." We could also put the exact distance in a hatnote I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it is much much much more accurate and less misleading. Distance might clear things up but not necessary (it's a total guess and some sources contrast that finding). I prefer the second version. Now how do we get it on the page quickly? You have the greatest experience and will support the process you choose. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you restate which version you prefer User:Gtoffoletto? I am not clear which is the second? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
"The virus is mainly spread from one person to another during close contact[a] and via respiratory droplets produced during coughing." --Gtoffoletto (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Gtoffoletto perfect. I would support that aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Added here Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Another_thought Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I've pinged a couple of users. If you can do the same let's hope we can reach consensus fast. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Compromise_of_all_positions for another attempt at broader compromise. I've tried to eliminate the source of the droplets to avoid controversy. We can treat them in the article body. What is sure is that the main source of transmission is composed by two elements: A. close proximity AND B. droplets. Everything else is unnecessary. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

To reach broader consensus I've slightly edited my approach reintroducing coughing into the sentence. Some initial positive signs of support. I hope it finally reflects the views of all. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
No luck yet unfortunately. The RFC format is failing miserably. Anything would be better than what we have now. My proposal is we close the RFC as no consensus has been found and go back to a more traditional form of discussion. Agree or see a better way? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Any input for Puddleglum's The Signpost article?

Hi Doc James, Tenryuu from Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. A fellow collaborator, Puddleglum2.0, is looking for editors to answer some interview questions regarding editing and COVID-19. If you're interested, please leave your thoughts over at User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR. Cheers! --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

chlortalidone vs. hctz

The best info is the meta-analysis that directly compares chlortalidone and hctz, which found that the two drugs had the same toxicity. That should go first in the adverse event section of the chlortalidone article. Lesser quality evidence should go second.Sbelknap (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Switched order in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you accidentally include more than the first two sentences

Well done mate as to a great end to the discussion.... beers all round... but did you mean to include the whole paragraph? Seems like the mode of spread knowledge will change very soon and I think the encyclopaedia shouldn’t have to challenge the whole paragraph as “current consensus”, ppl should be able to challenge the third and fourth? —Almaty (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes the other bits such as may spread before symptoms appear are also important. As understanding and sources change position on spread we can discuss changes of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes trust me I am repetitively checking all three sites and have google alerts sent if there’s even slight changes from all three sites :) —Almaty (talk)

Covid-19, NHS: Email

Hi Doc James, I know you're likely to be super busy at the moment but I've sent you an email concerning a colleague's question about Wiki and information for NHS ICUs - would be very grateful to hear your thoughts if / when you get a chance. Zeromonk (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you very much for all the work you do for Wikipedia and for the work you do on the front lines as a physician. LearnMore (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We have a lot of excellent people working on this stuff :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Hey can you redo your edits? Im sorry i accidentally undone your edits because you edited when i was editing so i cant save my edits. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Pktlaurence looks fine now. No more than two refs per item to keep the chart narrower. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

our world in data

it seems you have been working on connecting to the WHO for so long. I now trust our world in data as a WP:MEDRS compatible source more than the others. But amazingly they’re all commons... they use ECDC data but if the WHO are making errors that our world in data corrected leading to WHO errata, I trust the charity/oxford researchers to give a reliable replication of ECDC data in its entirety. Can you approach them, or are you already doing this - to integrate more? They’re already commons and we could do it with a lot of effort but I would love to see that happen more often in this pandemic. There’s heaps of wiki politics I’m sure but that seems exciting and I love their commitment to commons too. —Almaty (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Have been working with Our World in Data for about a year. We have this massive upload of their data[2] by User:Fæ. I have been trying to get our grapher tool to work better. User:Doc_James/OurWorld But I need programming help. Yes happy to see them used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

the dreaded sentence

can we please go to mainly for that, typically is a very different word. Per the dictionaries. Thanks for considering. —Almaty (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling one way or the other on "The virus is typically" versus "The virus is mainly". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sent you an email

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TLDR; Would love to talk to you quickly. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Replied Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

So this is very awkward to ask

I would really appreciate it if you could review mine and others requests at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser as no one as reviewed it since 5 March. Thanks, — RealFakeKimT 20:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:RealFakeKim I have never used that tool so not sure I am based placed to approve others to use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
A few admins watch this page. Hopefully one can look at this and help you out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you agree with this consensus?

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#COVID-19_or_Coronavirus_disease_2019? thanks, --Gtoffoletto (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be at the talk page of the page in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
It would mean hundreds of discussions since there is inconsistency across multiple pages, category names, etc. We need a centralised discussion and even if we achieve a consensus (which should be as broad as possible in order to be definitive) any name change of existing pages I think would not be urgent as it probably would have to be done by a BOT. But at least we decide a standard for new pages. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
For the main article on the disease, we would need consensus at that article. For the rest we can use the abbreviation as we use COPD as an abbreviation IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hi Doc, I don't know how you manage to do so much here, and your regular job, and take care of yourself. ↠Pine (✉) 05:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I Agree. Don't try to do too much Doc. We got your back. Remember to rest and be safe. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks you both. Just finished a stretch of shifts in the ER. Was supposed to go on holidays but obviously all those have been cancelled. So have a bit of extra time :-) Happy to do what I can to try to decrease the effects of this disease well making WP better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James, thanks for all that you do, in and off Wiki. Best wishes, El_C 20:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Request to use photo

Hello, Dr. Hellman. I am a final semester nursing student in Bloomington, IL. I'd like to use your photo on Pulmonary Fibrosis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_fibrosis#/media/File:IPF_amiodarone.JPG ) in my Internship & Management case study project presentation. However, as one knows using Wikipedia (and by extension Commons) as a source is generally frowned upon. The way I figure it, if I ask you here on the talk page and you give me an affirmative that I can use it, I can then cite it as a personal correspondence instead of "from Wikipedia." (I suppose I should try some way to be really REALLY sure you're a licensed physician, but usage of it isn't a critical fact in the presentation. Just trying to demonstrate by side-by-side comparison how fibrosis could mask infiltrates by comparing your CXR to one of a pneumonia patient.) So, is it OK if I use it? Thanks! Darren Erickson, NS, EMT-B. 98.215.82.138 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Happy for you to use the phone. Please attribute as "James Heilman, MD, Wikipedia". Simple mention during your presentation that yes physicians do edit Wikipedia. It is fairly easy to verify me as a physician BTW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you much, I can do that, and very much appreciate your contributions not just for how they help me personally but that everyone can benefit from the knowledge. Best, Darren. 98.215.82.138 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
And if you have good clinical images that Wikipedia is missing, remember to give back in the future :-) Best of luck with your presentation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Outcome of price discussion

I noticed this is no longer being discussed at MOS:MED. I'm still interesting in implementing Template talk:Infobox drug#GoodRx, so I was wondering what the outcome of that discussion was. I haven't been very active lately for various reasons. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Seppi333 have not looked either. Most of my work and Wikipedia efforts are now on COVID-19 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Seppi333 closing of the RFC has been delayed by COVID-related real-life issues for closing admin, Ymblanter. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
We are actually already a bit further (I have read through the RfC and contacted the other closer), but it would still take some time for us to draft the text. Sorry for this delay.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes all of us are busy with other stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this is worth adding to the COVID-19 in the United States article, but as of yesterday (26 March 2020 - Forbes reference) GoodRx launched a telemedicine price comparison platform at https://www.goodrx.com/treatment that lists COVID-19 assessment+screening providers by state, including those that offer these services free of charge to patients: https://www.goodrx.com/treatment/coronavirus?paramsStateFilter=CA (NB: this tool is still under development, as it does not currently list all service providers and GoodRx has indicated that they are adding new providers on a day-to-day basis; e.g., https://www.pushhealth.com/ is a telemedical service provider in the US that is not currently listed). The telemedical service providers that are listed on their platform and currently offer COVID-19 assessments for free in the United States are:

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Added it to COVID-19 in the United States#Telemedicine. No guarantee it'll stick. I'm going back on hiatus now, as I have a lot of shit to do IRL. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_166&oldid=949380728"