Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

[edit]

Changing this:

"A low level of blood lymphocytess may result from the virus acting through ACE2-related entry into lymphocytes.[157]"

to the following:

"COVID-19 can lower lymphocyte presence in blood and can be a valuable prognostic marker. This lymphopenia may be caused by several factors, including at least lymphocyte trafficking (especially to the lungs and large bowel)[add1][add2] and possibly direct infection through the ACE2 receptor.[157]"

[add1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9050483/

[add2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473169/

The reason for this change is that there is well-recorded evidence as above that the lymphopenia is not only due to direct infection, and a consensus is not clear on what the primary cause of lymphopenia in COVID-19 is. There's clear cut evidence of it for trafficking, but the direct infection causing apoptosis is less clear but commonly posited in research. Noahkahn (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request needs better sources, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

House of Reps Report conclusion

[edit]

The final report of U.S. House of Representatives on the Coronavirus Pandemic (4 December 2024) bluntly states – "FINDING: SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that Causes COVID-19, Likely Emerged Because of a Laboratory or Research Related Accident."[1]. The Democratic Party's report on this report took issue with some of its findings but states: "Today, a zoonotic origin and lab accident are both plausible, as is a hybrid scenario reflecting a mixture of the two....However... without greater transparency from the Chinese Communist Party it will be difficult, if not impossible, to know the origins of COVID-19."[2] A summation of this surely needs to appear in the header given it represents the most recent opinion of the U.S. Government which funded the work at Wuhan. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
Junk source, of no use to Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the world's people don't live in the USA, the country that most politicised the pandemic. I see little value in using this information. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The report is garbage and probably fails WP:MEDRS. It is not true that it represents the most recent opinion of the U.S. Government as it is a report from the legislature, not the executive. It warrants discussion at COVID-19 lab leak theory, but I concur it adds little here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's utterly juvenile, bad faith replies like this that make people lose trust in Wikipedia. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's junk sources that make people lose trust in Congress. Per this article:

The conclusions themselves aren't especially interesting; they're expected from a report with partisan aims. But the method used to reach those conclusions is often striking: The Republican majority engages in a process of systematically changing the standard of evidence needed for it to reach a conclusion. For a conclusion the report's authors favor, they'll happily accept evidence from computer models or arguments from an editorial in the popular press; for conclusions they disfavor, they demand double-blind controlled clinical trials.
...
So how to handle the disproportionate amount of evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the committee didn't like? By acting like it doesn't exist. "By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced," the report argues. Instead, it devotes page after page to suggesting that one of the key publications that laid out the evidence for a natural origin was the result of a plot among a handful of researchers who wanted to suppress the idea of a lab leak. Subsequent papers describing more extensive evidence appear to have been ignored.
Meanwhile, since there's little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times.

— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOIA documents show that Dr. Fauci was concerned it was a lab leak even before it made news. Is he now a bad source? 50.107.31.239 (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having concern is not the same as certainty. Peaceray (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's what scientists do; they have hypotheses, test them against evidence, and form conclusions. Fauci and other virologists went through this process in 2020; the conspiracy theorists OTOH omit the science stage and adopt a belief-based approach. This is sourced/covered in our lab leak article. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article with regard to origin, is so utterly outdated and absurd it should be deleted and restarted with the point of view of the gain of function lab leak fact.
Why would anyone still use the "bat excuse" when we know better... Unless there is some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci.
Read' Rand Paul
Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up
And now "Talk" is subject to censorship?
btw, the persistent use of the term "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative for other scientific views is notable. The only "conspiracy theory" I see anymore after FOIA revealed early interchanges of the principles is that CV wasn't gain of function and magically came from animals when principles said (early on) that wasn't possible. Ecgberht1 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds does this constitute WP:SOAPBOXing yet? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because facts re: FOIA revelations, and a reference are provided. Ecgberht1 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is sub-par, and its inclusion is not merited. Specifically, it is WP:BIASED. If you find a better source substantiating your view, we are more than happy to review it and potentially include it. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this constitutes soapboxing. It's also an NPA violation, accusing editors of some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci. You're really pushing it here, and I highly suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Key word, "unless" (which you omit). That's NOT an accusation unless you identify with it. Ecgberht1 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how language works. Drop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You first. Language does not "work" by using straw men and misquoting others. Seeking sanctions for your violation of NPA. Ecgberht1 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about the persistent use of "conspiracy theory" for the presentation of any information that challenges the orthodoxy of "animal VIRUS"? Would that be considered NPA? Ecgberht1 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any instance of that where the use of "conspiracy theory" is not in reference to sources characterizing the theory as such? BD2412 T 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole article on it wrt CV.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation Ecgberht1 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah, if you don't stop with such loaded language and bludgeoning, we'll have to seek sanctions to have you barred from this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your solution for not having a response. Seeking sanctions for harassment as well. Ecgberht1 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey bud, if you've been offended by anything I've written then I'm sorry you have been. What I suggest is that before spouting "subpar" and claiming "bias"about a reference you know nothing about, you actually read the book. You can get it free on Hoopla, it's loaded with solid evidence for the lableak theory and details why the natural development in animals is impossible. You can skip right to chapter 4, but I encourage starting at the beginning.
I hope you have sufficient interest in the science to explore it. Ecgberht1 (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this is just condescending as fuck. WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, no, I do have to demolish your "reference." It is by Rand Paul, an opthamologist who has no background in viral pathology who, when faced with changes in the certification for his practice, chose to create his own unaccredited board to give himself a "certification" just to spite the real one. Then let it fall apart when he moved into politics. The man's a con artist with no qualifications in this area, so attempting to push him as some kind of expert on this topic is daft. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know enough about immunology and pathology to understand that Rand Paul's conclusions are inconsistent with existing literature (systematically reviewed literature, at that). The solid evidence you speak of is, at best, speculation. Bats have been well known throughout history to be hot breeding grounds for viruses and other nasty pathogens, and although zoonosis is usually uncommon, that is not to say it is impossible. There is significant misinterpretation and misconstruing of statistics that have been weaponised by certain people to serve a political purpose. I do believe one of the arguments for the lab leak theory is the CGG codon argument, with proponents arguing that such a rare combination of two sequential codons being a "tell-tale" sign of genetic engineering. Well, yes, it is rare in nature, but again, not impossible. It is important to remember lots of things in nature happen (and don't happen) because things line up (or don't). Confirmation bias often leads people to draw connections between things that do not necessarily exist. It is sub-par because it is written with an ulterior motive, that is, to signal his virtue that he is standing for what is "right" and uncovering the "truth", whatever that means to his voters. You are being conned. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

[edit]

You guys should reflect a bit on why people aren't donating to Wikipedia as much as you hoped they would, and whether your censorship and political bias in the past has anything to do with that. Good luck. 71.38.187.20 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The people who write the articles are all WP:VOLUNTEERS. Also, I haven't heard anything indicating that there is any problem along the lines of "people are donating as much as you hoped". As far as I know, this donation campaign is doing okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FBI report pointing to lab leak

[edit]

This article is out of date. As of today, there is official scrutiny of the WHO.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/fbi-covid-19-pandemic-lab-leak-theory-dfbd8a51 2600:6C40:4C00:463:C807:F1DD:CB00:1E53 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a global website, not an American one. It is a scholarly website, not a popular media news-based one. Additionally, this information is not WP:DUE for this article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 06:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressional push to endorse the lab-leak theory is based on an op-ed, while ignoring the actual science. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/congressional-republicans-conclude-sars-cov-2-originated-in-a-lab-leak/ — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19&oldid=1266811862"