This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19. 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.
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 1 October 2020. The result of the move review was Reclosed as "No consensus".
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. On the one hand, "COVID-19" is a common lay name of the disease, and 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic was moved to COVID-19 pandemic partially because of the COMMONNAME policy. On the other hand, many more editors point out that there is a bar for acronym titles (and, indeed, medicine-related titles) that this page doesn't reach. Some other editors also point out that we don't have the articles for SARS and MERS at the acronyms (and, I'd also add to the list, vCJD and the flu). Hence, the result is to not move. Sceptre (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose While WP:COMMONNAME applies to diseases and scientific names with more common terms, this would go against the title standards for other diseases that are commonly referred to by their acronym (See Middle East respiratory syndrome, Eastern equine encephalitis, Severe acute respiratory syndrome, etc). Although it is more common for the disease to be referred to as COVID-19, so is MERS, EEE and SARS. If the world adopts a colloquial name for this disease (e.g. Wuhan virus) that takes over such an overwhelming majority as COVID-19, then I would support a change in title. Babegriev (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Support precedent in wikipedia is HIV/AIDS, can follow common name as acronym. Per MOS:ACROTITLEif the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject, and COVID-19 passes both tests. In medicine, in academic publications, COVID-19 is far more comminly used than Coronavirus Diseases 2019 --Investigatory (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC), and in the extensive prior move discussion of the pandemic page, COVID-19 is the commonest name. --Investigatory (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - per MOS:ACROTITLE, things like Central Intelligence Agency are not moved to their acronyms per their usage in "professional and academic publications". Professional or academic publications regarding COVID-19 always name the disease first as "Coronavirus disease 2019" or similar (ex: "novel coronavirus disease 2019") - not "COVID-19". I also agree with Babegriey that for medical articles we prefer not to use abbreviations in article titles. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here because it does not cover using an acronym versus a full name - that is covered by a separate guideline (the MOS on acronyms in article titles). Given that COVID-19 and Coronavirus disease 2019 are the same other than that one is an acronym, WP:COMMONNAME is met here because the title is already at the common name. For this reason, anyone arguing COMMONNAME is arguing for the current title just as much as for COVID-19 as the title. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per the style precedent for other diseases, and per the reference to MOS:ACROTITLE's exception for common referral names in academic publications mentioned above. That said, those particular style precedents don't seem very solid and could be subject to change, especially as ACROTITLE supports using abbreviations where commonly known in most other contexts. This would not seem to be the venue for debating such a precedent change, however, and so for now oppose unless that gets debated elsewhere. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Edit - Furthermore, the naming of this page as it is currently is included as an established consensus point here, so changing this would also be to challenge that existing consensus on this specific issue. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Calidum, not really. The point of a move request is to change local consensus. Per WP:CONLEVEL, a consensus here does not override the guideline at MOS:ACROTITLE, and the consensus BlackholeWA linked to is wider (spanning at least two pages) than this.
There's also a point, which I tried to bring up, that anyone arguing "common name applies" is arguing for the current name - "COVID-19" is simply an acronym for "COronaVIrus Disease 2019" - meaning that the current name is wholly acceptable. Furthermore, there are at least three diseases with "common" acronyms linked above, all of which have their articles at the full name - HIV/AIDS being the exception. TLDR: Common name is "Coronavirus disease 2019" which is abbreviated as "COVID-19" - so the article should be at the common name and the abbreviation defined in the first sentence and thereafter used if desired. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of acronyms used as titles. HIV has been mentioned above. There is also DNA and RNA. Outside the medical world we have NASA, NATO and KGB. I'm sure you can name others, like LSD and THC, where the title is spelled out. The point is, the MOS allows to decide whether to use the full title or an acronym on a case-by-case basis. So LOCALCONSENSUS isn't an issue. -- Calidum04:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Calidum, there's also plenty of titles that have acronyms but are not used as the title - including Central Intelligence Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, All Nippon Airways... my point is that naming a bunch of stuff is useless and does not help this discussion. As I said above, are not moved to their acronyms per their usage in "professional and academic publications" - you have yet to say why we should override this statement which is agreed upon in a project-wide MOS guideline for this article. HIV is mostly referred to in academic/professional publications by HIV - so that makes sense - as are DNA/RNA. Things outside the biological field do not make sense to compare to.
Please note that COVID-19 wikiproject are not consensuses, they are discussions only with the equivalent enforcement over COVID-19 wikipages as a simple essay. --Investigatory (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring that while yes, the MOS allows for decision, it also provides a guideline based on usage in "professional and academic publications" - which still refer to the disease by its full name at least on first mention before switching to the acronym later in the article. COVID-19 is not used as the sole name of the disease in academic articles - thus MOS:ACROTITLE says we should use the full name of the disease as our title. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Investigatory, MOS:ACROTITLE does not say "used in the title", it says usage in "professional and academic publications" - and in professional and academic publications, the term is almost universally "Coronavirus disease 2019" (with or without a comma) on first use, followed by the acronym. This is common for many things in academia - acronyms may be used in the title simply for space/formatting reasons - journals are a publication like any other, and the use of an acronym in the title saves print space. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE. While the disease commonly known by just its acronym, including SARS, MERS, and others, academic sources tend to refer the disease by that long form name, such as COVID-19 as Coronavirus Disease 2019, SARS referred as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, and many more. If this article moved to just acronym title as COVID-19 for example, if would precedents for other users to move all diseases names to just acronym that commonly used by people (SARS, MERS) even Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 would be moved to SARS-CoV 2 if this page was moved. 110.137.184.148 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Not every article title has to have a common name. Just because the pandemic is called the "COVID-19 pandemic" does not mean that it should be renamed to "COVID-19" as well. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per above. The official name of the disease is "Coronavirus disease 2019" caused by SARS-CoV-2. COVID is just an abbreviation of the name.~Destroyeraa🌀15:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE. There's well-established precedent on Wikipedia of more common acronyms not being used in article titles as an exception to the general rule on using the most common name for the title, and I think this article is in line with those other exceptions. See FBI, CIA, NAFTA, etc. "Coronavirus" is also a very common name for this disease, so "coronavirus disease" should be very recognizable to most readers. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree with comments above that the article should remain with the longer title and with COVID-19 being an abbreviation that redirects to the page. - Dyork (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Berchanhimez, and agree with BlackholeWA that this would not be the place to change the standard. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Agree that Covid-19 searches should redirect here and name should remain Coronavirus Disease 2019 as this is already the common name and Covid-19 is an abbreviation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Siccsucc (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Different target Move to "Severe acute respiratory syndrome 2"(SARS 2) instead as NIH lists this name and it is the systematically correct name for this disease (SARS↔SARS-CoV, SARS 2↔SARS-CoV-2). Erkin AlpGüney14:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but "SARS 2" definitely fails COMMONNAME. I haven't heard any major sources call it that, academic or otherwise - to rename to that would only confuse readers. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Coronavirus disease 2019 should definitely be an alternate title in the first sentence, but this is a global phenomenon that has been exhaustively referred to as COVID-19. I understand the rules support either interpretation, but at a certain level of adoption, the decision has to favor the term used by billions of people, and that has a clear winner. Same path as polio[myelitis]. Juansmith (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
"COVID-19" is the abbreviation of "Coronavirus disease 2019" and it redirects to the primary article, so it will still be a quicker shortcut to this coronavirus disease. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of quick shortcuts, of some note is that if you type COVID-19 into google this page isn't in the top results, but if you type COVID-19 pandemic into google that page is one of the first results. No idea about how search engine works, but might be because this page is not using the WP:COMMONNAME --Investigatory (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I read in this page 77 'COVID‑19' occurrences, but the correct spelling is 'COVID-19' with a different hyphen. I just want to fix this mispell, but if anybody wants to do it in my place instead that would be o.k. for me. Iddivoh (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The request was about changing the ‑ non breaking hyphens into regular hyphens. There are 304 instances of regular hyphens and 78 of non breaking hyphens (both are shown the same in an in-browser search). I'm guessing whoever added these hyphens did so intentionally, not sure we need to fix this. – Thjarkur(talk)19:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
If you cannot distinguish the hyphens or if the work is not worth your effort please allow me to do it in order to fix all the occurrences in the same way, I will not do anything else and you will be able to verify what I am saying. Iddivoh (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Should way include 3.1% (= total # deaths / total # confirmed cases) in the infobox?
I would argue that it's not a good idea to include this percentage (total # deaths / total # confirmed cases) in the infobox, for two main reasons:
It's not a useful number, since testing rates vary significantly by region, the number of non-severe cases that go unreported or unconfirmed may be high in some areas and low in others; computing this ratio necessarily treats non-comparable data as if it were comparable.
It's easy to misinterpret. I still encounter people who believe that the infection fatality rate is over 3%, but this is not what the '3.1%' presented here actually means.
It should be sufficient to just display the number of confirmed cases and the number of deaths. Including the '3.1%' in such a prominent position on this page could create a false impression of this ratio's significance or meaning.
Case Fatality Ratio is a valid number, but deserves being placed in proper context (presumably in Coronavirus disease 2019#Epidemiology). And just as importantly, CFR is only validly calculated using cases where the result is known, have to compare recoveries and fatalities without including those who are still sick. If we add it, it should be sourced from a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (possibly accompanied by date of calculation), rather than community calculated. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that CFR is a valid number to look at, but only if you have a uniform definition of what qualifies as a case. See my first point above. I didn't consider the fact of those cases with still unknown outcomes, that's another good point. I should also add, I'm primarily objecting to putting this '3.1%' in such a prominent position on the page. CFR in proper context is, of course, something that would be relevant to include. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs)17:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we (WP) should be calculating CFR - it's not simple as noted above - and would instead quote and cite CFR from a MEDRS. — soupvector (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Should a non-breaking hyphen be used for acronyms like COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and rRT-PCR?
I'm fairly sure that a non-breaking hyphen is correct for acronyms such as COVID-19, but I'd like to get input from here before changing anything. signed, Swiftestcattalk13:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems correct to me and I have been using them. Here are some examples of line wrap at the hyphen
This is some wrapped text that broke at the hyphen in COVID-
19 and could be avoided by using a non-breaking hyphen.
This is some wrapped text that broke at the hyphen in SARS-CoV-
2 and could be avoided by using a non-breaking hyphen.
This is some wrapped text that broke at the hyphen in SARS-
CoV-2 and could be avoided by using a non-breaking hyphen.
This is some wrapped text that broke at the hyphen in rRT-
PCR and could be avoided by using a non-breaking hyphen.
@Swiftestcat: It seems that you didn't think they were permitted since your edit summary stated Replaced all non-breaking hyphens with hyphen-minuses to comply with the encoding guidelines in MOS:HYPHEN --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Update ECMO data in Managment
In the Management section, the statement is made : "Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used to address the issue of respiratory failure, but its benefits are still under consideration.[140][needs update]"
This needs to be updated. A paper published in the Lancet 9/25/2020 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32008-0 ) describes the use of ECMO in 1,035 patients with survival rates similar to when it is used for many other causes of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This is the best evidence published that ECMO is an effective therapy for COVID-19. I added a section to the below article, and similar language can be used. But because this page is semi-locked, I do not have the ability to update this one. Please consider this change.
Conflict of interest disclosure *** I am an author on several of the articles cited, and am the current President of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. Please make sure I have presented this data objectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattpaden (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
COI aside, you're suggesting a primary reference to a retrospective cohort study - among the lowest quality sources we consider for medical claims. Let's see whether scientific consensus (i.e.WP:NPOV) supports the claim that it's beneficial - until then, the current wording seems accurate. — soupvector (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done
While the study has power in a large N, I have to agree. It's limitations are the retrospective nature and the Cox multivariate analysis does have the risk of missing contributing factors. I agree and don't see a problem keeping the article as is. MartinezMD (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the concern and the review. Completely understand the limitations, and they are well described in the paper. Like you, I hope there will be an RCT done in the future (actually, I hope this will all be over before an RCT could be completed...but putting that aside). However, at present this is the largest group of outcome data we have for this incredibly ill population (those who have failed a ventilator and are at exceptionally high risk of death). Other benefits is 213 centers in 36 countries - while that introduces heterogenity in practice, it also provides real world evidence of how these advanced technologies are actually being used on the ground and what outcomes clinicians should expect. Results are consistent with outcomes of previously conducted RCTs for ECMO for ARDS and represents a much different outcome (38% mortality) than the preliminary Chinese case reports/series (which showed >90% mortality). Thanks for what you all do to make Wikipedia information appropriate and balanced. Mattpaden (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Certainly not my intention. Apologies if I came across that way. Stepping back a minute - neutral viewpoint of Wikipedia articles is essential above all. I present this as a suggestion for revision, but completely agree I have conflicts of interest, and why I want and welcome review and the decision to be made by truly neutral parties. If it doesn't meet the bar, please don't include it. Mattpaden (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's fine to ask and debate. The report does have the power of large numbers. I think it would be fine to put it here - "Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used to address the issue of respiratory failure,(insert the study here), but its benefits are still under consideration" since it wouldn't be making an assertion, but I will defer to the other editors. MartinezMD (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, as an author he did the right thing discussing it here. I don't think the study itself would pass WP:MEDRS muster either way, though. We'd need secondary and tertiary sources, and ideally phrasing which gives the finding due weight. The article isn't meant to be a collection of the latest cutting edge research, it's meant to be summarizing scientific consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, we can take one at a time and just look for an updated medrs source. There have been more papers written since all this began. I just added a review as a replacement for primary cites and removed one unnecessary tag (I don't think we need a source to say if the disease gets worse you can die). So we're down to seven. Come on guys, take one or two and and update them. If we can't find a good medrs-compliant source/review, then remove it. MartinezMD (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@MartinezMD: That only works if the source you add actually supports the text in our article. The text in question is "The density of ACE2 in each tissue correlates with the severity of the disease in that tissue and some have suggested decreasing ACE2 activity might be protective," and I'm having difficulty in finding the text in the review you added that supports that. I can't find any reference to "density of ACE2" and the review actually states "Several studies have revealed the protective effects of the ACE2/angiotensin-(1–7)/MAS axis in the lungs and further indications that increasing ACE2 activity is protective. Would you be kind enough, please, to quote the text of the review that supports the two assertions in our article text?
Similarly, our article claims that "As the alveolar disease progresses, respiratory failure might develop and death may follow." You don't need a MEDRS-source to assert that death may follow respiratory failure, but you do need a source to state that progression of alveolar disease can lead to respiratory failure. I'd be grateful if you'd either restore the tag or remove the unsupported biomedical claim. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS:Sorry, my mistake. I had several articles I was reviewing and inserted the wrong link in my citation generator. I think this one is supportive. "The density or availability of ACE2 in a tissue or organ is determinant to maintain its activity and effects on the renin‐angiotensin system (RAS), and hence, the homeostasis of the vasoconstriction, blood pressure, heart, lung and kidney physiology, etc. 1 The loss of all these ACE2‐mediated effects and RAS homeostasis could be responsible for most of the clinical symptoms reported in patients with COVID 19. Moreover, lung alveoli cells such as type 2 pneumocytes and macrophages express ACE2 and are particularly vulnerable to SARS‐CoV‐2, that together with the lost of ACE2 activity seem to be responsible for the most worrying COVID 19 effects in the respiratory system, causing pneumonia and lung fibrosis. Some authors have suggested the use of ACE2 inhibitors to block the virus infection of the cells expressing..."
@MartinezMD: thanks for sorting that out. I was beginning to wonder if I was missing something in the original source you used, but the replacement looks fine. Good work. The pmid:32572965 looks interesting, not only because it's an unusual mixture of review and clinical case reports, but also because it sheds light on the differences emerging between earlier ARDS and that caused by COVID-19. That's a topic we haven't really touched on, and deserves some mention somewhere in the article. Nice find. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Heart damage may be an important part of severe disease and death from COVID-19, especially in older people with underlying illness. Heart damage like this might also explain some frequently reported long-term symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pain, and heart palpitations.
The risk of heart damage may not be limited to older and middle-aged adults. For example, young adults with COVID-19, including athletes, can also suffer from myocarditis. Severe heart damage has occurred in young, healthy people, but is rare. There may be more cases of mild effects of COVID-19 on the heart that can be diagnosed with special imaging tests, including in younger people with mild or minimal symptoms; however, the long-term significance of these mild effects on the heart are unknown. CDC will continue to assess and provide updates as new data emerge.
it's not making any assertions, so it shouldn't be used. It's saying they don't know and that they're investigating. At most it would support is something saying they are doing research, and that's just unnecessary and definitely takes up needed space in the article. MartinezMD (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
"frequently reported long-term symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pain, and heart palpitations."
"associated", "closely watching and working to understand", "might explain", "CDC will continue to assess and provide updates as new data emerge." I understand what you're saying, but it's clear from what they're saying that they don't know and are looking. They don't provide data or make hard statements. MartinezMD (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 pandemic link
@Gerald Waldo Luis: I removed the link from the passage space, but kept the "ongoing coronavirus pandemic" term. Instead, I have added the COVID-19 pandemic link in the hatnote. I also included the "COVID-19 redirects here" on there. Seventyfiveyears (talk)22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Seventyfiveyears, I'm reverting. Hatnotes and body text serve separate functions and should not influence each other. Hatnotes are purely about navigation, i.e. readers that have arrived at one page when they might actually be searching for another. The passage space text, on the other hand, is about the topic itself. To not link COVID-19 pandemic early on in the passage space for this article would be extremely odd. {{u|Sdkb}}talk07:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
We should not add it until it is defined and validated. Right now it's conjecture from limited anecdotal accounts without any published research, just practioners saying they see it. There is no way to add any of the parts you mention without this. MartinezMD (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
LaceyUF, the answer to this question depends on what info and how you planned on wording it. Nobody can just say "yeah, go ahead use that link and put whatever you want" - but if you actually propose an addition or change to the article, other editors can evaluate the specific change. Sources are not "reliable" or "not reliable" in a black and white manner - it depends on what is intended to be placed in our article here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
LaceyUF, the section on the infection fatality rate already includes numbers sourced to much more reliable sources than that, such as the WHO and the CDC. I do not see any reason that an additional, less reliable citation is necessary in the article. Again, if you want specific wording to be added, it helps if you provide such. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the Reason article is just linking to the CDC (a source appropriate for this page), which itself is a reworking of one paper using European data. But the linked article is 5 months old now, and the CDC has updated their estimates since then (which this article hasn't yet updated, as they're now age-range IFRs). As for Reason itself, here's what Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has to say on the topic:
There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.
This seems to match my read on the article. Either way, it's neither appropriate nor necessary to quote the article here for this purpose. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.
It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them.
In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols. Mathematical equations and formulas should be avoided when they conflict with the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined.
A very tiny minority of the readers are doctors or medical students, and the vast majority of the readers are people who are not doctors or medical students. The lead should be accessible to the general reader (without a medical or science education), especially when it comes to concepts that would allow people to make more educated decisions in their day-to-day lives, such as, "Should we hold a birthday party to celebrate my mom's 80th birthday, as long as nobody is coughing or has a fever?" and "Is it safe to go to the hair salon, since they said they use disposable capes, they disinfect their tools after each use, and they wash their hands frequently?"
The purpose of the article should be to give the reader a basic understanding of COVID-19, not to get them to say on Wikipedia or click on Wikilinks, and not to teach them new vocabulary. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:MEDMOS applies here as a specific guideline as opposed to a general article. That being said, what part of the lead, as it currently stands, do you think is a problem? MartinezMD (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Because if you're to explain that, you gotta explain ARDS, storms, clots, rRT-PCR, and vaccines—literally all medical terminologies.GeraldWL04:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I already responded to that point in this talk page, but to someone else instead. Basically, the average person cannot do anything with the knowledge about what ARDS is, in that it won't affect their day-to-day decision-making. However, by knowing how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, they can make smarter day-to-day life decisions. Can knowing what ARDS is change the average person's behaviour? Probably not. Can knowing how SARS-CoV-2 spreads change the average person's behaviour? Definitely. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be a good reasoning. Rationally knowing what ARDS is can affect day-to-day decisions, because you know how severe it is. Asymptomatic is just another word, like atypical or amoral. The lead is small enough to teach primary kids about simple prefixes. Besides, we prob shouldn't make this article a decision maker. Wikipedia is not a medical advisor. GeraldWL11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
"Asymptomatic" requires clarification
Regarding data on COVID-19 "asymptomatic" transmission, one of the problems is that evidence of "asymptomatic" transmission includes transmission from people who are "presymptomatic". See Asymptomatic SARS Coronavirus 2 infection: Invisible yet invincible, for example:
Defining “asymptomatic”
Transmission of the virus by infected, albeit asymptomatic individuals has been reported since the early stages of the outbreak (Pan et al., 2020, Yan et al., 2020) posing substantial COVID-19 containment challenges. The likely spread of COVID-19 occurs to a large extent via asymptomatic individuals, as these do not present to health care or testing facilities. Uncertainty about the significance of asymptomatic infections is reinforced by the vagueness with which the term “asymptomatic” is used. WHO defines an asymptomatic case as a laboratory-confirmed infected person without overt symptoms (WHO, 2020). It remains to be established how thoroughly such a person needs to be examined clinically. Moreover, the distinction between asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals is often neglected in COVID-19 case definitions.
A distinction between asymptomatic and presymptomatic stages can currently only be made retrospectively, after the occurrence or non-occurrence of clinical symptoms. Recent evidence suggests that elevated serum/plasma lactate dehydrogenase levels may, already in the early stages, be indicative of presymptomatic infections and, thus, facilitate early differentiation (Ooi and Low, 2020). Diagnostic imaging cannot distinguish between the two infection stages, as, surprisingly, 30% of asymptomatic individuals showed ground-glass opacities, and 27% had diffuse consolidations (Long et al., 2020).
"Presymptomatic" is sometimes a subset of "asymptomatic", since the infected person "does not show symptoms" when they infect another person. The term "true asymptomatic" is sometimes used to refer to infected people who will never develop symptoms, i.e., asymptomatics excluding presymptomatics. In the COVID-19 article, it is not enough to say "asymptomatic", since we are referring to infected people who will never develop symptoms, specifically, and are excluding presymptomatic people. To avoid the terms "presymptomatic" and "true asymptomatic", it is better to define exactly the groups we are talking about (e.g., "infected people who will never develop symptoms"). If you want to keep "asymptomatic", then we need to define it, which is what researchers are asking for from even case study reports. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I should've added in my edit summary that I gave "asymptomatic" a definition in addition to the revert.
TechnophilicHippie, I went by the Wikipedia article Asymptomatic, which has the bullet point: [The condition] may develop symptoms later and only then require treatment, which implies that presymptomatic people are included. We could also reverse the order of the two's mentions ("asymptomatic" before "presymptomatic") for a top-down approach from generality to specificity.
This also leads into me starting a conversation about how simple the article content should be made. A simple version of this article exists (which unfortunately gets less traffic than this one), so I believe we can afford to add medical terms (that are appropriately wikilinked). A question that I think will help everyone decide on the level of terminology use and definitions given is: Who is this article intended for? It seems many of the editors who maintain this article feel that people who are ESL should be considered. As this article focuses on an urgent life-threatening disease and receives many daily page views, I personally see no problem with spelling terms out more than in other articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the way the article is currently phrased, with the initial explanation of asymptomatic is good, as it is used subsequently in the article. The article on asymptomatic imho excellently describes the meaning and is far better than anything we could add to this article. We should not reduce the reading level of the article as by definition it is a complex topic and would detract from its value. The technical terms are linked for further reading if the reader isn't clear on a meaning. If not, should we add full definitions for septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pandemic, aerosols, etc - all undefined terms in the article? Some degree of reader effort is expected. If they want simple they can read the CDC summary. MartinezMD (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
When you go down to the Transmission section of the article, it says, "It can transmit when people are symptomatic, also for up to two days prior to developing symptoms, and even if a person never shows symptoms." The subsection clearly communicates the idea without the word "asymptomatic" (although it says "symptomatic"), and "never shows symptoms" is clearly referring "true asymptomatic" rather than including presymptomatic people. Can we use the same clever phrasing? The reason why I think we should put more effort into clarifying transmission is because there is a lot of misunderstanding about transmission in particular, where stores focus on disinfecting surfaces multiple times a day and offer this effort as a safety guarantee for customers entering the store. Schools focus on hiring janitors to deep-clean classrooms every day. However, this does not make things safe, because it's not the main way it spreads. My concern is not that someone would find Wikipedia too hard and decide to go to the CDC site instead (what type of person would fit this profile?), but that someone would find Wikipedia too hard and go to Facebook instead for information. See Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not just ESL people who should be considered, but people who are sufficiently literate in English, but not literate in science, where sending them to Simple Wikipedia would be condescending. If a native English speaker thinks that scientists should look into researching using disinfectant to cure a person infected with the coronavirus, then they seem to not have a basic understanding that human beings are made of cells, etc. People who think 5G causes the coronavirus seem to be literate enough in English, but lack a very basic understanding of biology and technology. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright, what we're discussing then is different from a definition and instead clarifying a disease course and how it has been portrayed by different reports in the media (and the initial understanding of the medical community). So it's not just the term, but how it has been sometimes incorrectly or incompletely described. I can support expanding that idea, but it needs to be phrased well. MartinezMD (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Droplet precautions poster Deeper than that, there was no scientific consensus at the beginning of the epidemic that the virus was transmitted via fomites, as the problem back then was not enough data. The WHO appeared to recommend droplet precautions for hospital PPE due to lack of information, as there was no reason to make an extraordinary claim/recommendation to use airborne precautions without evidence. As shown in the image inline, droplet precautions assume fomite transmission out of an abundance of caution. Health authorities of UN member countries just parrot whatever the WHO says, since they themselves don't have more information, which led to the public perception that "scientists" thought the disease spread via fomites. However, it was never the scientific community--some of whom tried to desperately tell the WHO that there was evidence of airborne transmission--that made such a conclusion. Health authorities didn't make this conclusion either, but they needed to decide on transmission precautions to recommend to hospitals to prevent healthcare workers from working without PPE. The end result of this mess of transmission precautions taken out of context and poor communication is that there is public distrust of "science". What I hope is for Wikipedia to communicate actual science better than health authorities (giving out mindless instructions), possibly hinting at the actual scientific method people use to learn about the world, so that people understand that it's not about "the government is telling me what to do". Maybe I need to start a new subsection of the talk page to communicate this broader idea, since it's not really just about the word "asymptomatic". TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Martinez MD in many ways. We don't need a lot of clarification, we link to respective articles instead if the readers wants to know more about it. Why should we make all "hard" terms ESL-level? The Simple English Wikipedia will do its job on that. Sure we shouldn't make articles overly technical, but this article is already good enough and not very technical. Like I said previously, if we're to make all terms simple, we should say stuff like "COVID-19 is a very easily spread disease that affects the nose and the blood caused by SARS-COV-2, which has made many people worldwide sick. When getting it, people may experience fever, cough, excessive yawning, hardness to breathe, and unable to smell and taste. After getting it, these effects may last for one to fourteen days. Some do not feel anything, while others get their lungs inflammated, possibly added with psychological reactions to proteins, inability of multiple organs, pressure in the blood, and coagulation of the blood."
Look at 2009 swine flu pandemic. "Some studies estimated that the actual number of cases including asymptomatic and mild cases could be 700 million to 1.4 billion people—or 11 to 21 percent of the global population of 6.8 billion at the time." Seriously, why should we define such a simple term in a lead? GeraldWL08:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them.
In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols. Mathematical equations and formulas should be avoided when they conflict with the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader.
My main objection to your over-simplified/satirical lead is that there is loss of information and/or inaccuracies. If there are two ways of saying the same thing without loss of information, is is better to say it in the simpler way. By the way, an incubation period of one to fourteen days does not mean, "After getting it, these effects may last for one to fourteen days." I made an edit to clarify what incubation period means to avoid exactly this misunderstanding. Your error supports the importance of explaining what terms mean, and that linking to the concept is not enough. The reader may misunderstand what is said and not click on the link to read more, because they already made up their mind that they understood what was being said. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined." Is the word "asymptomatic" really that uncommon that we need to define what it is in the lead? I find ARDS, septic shock, and blood clots to be a harder terminology. Asymptomatic is one of the most general terminologies I can think of. Just look at the many pandemic articles and you can spot so many "hard" words there. We don't nessecarily have to make ALL medical terms simple— I love making things a little difficult, that way the readers can learn new things and the Wikipedia article can have more influence to his education. GeraldWL00:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't realize there was this discussion when I just tried to edit the lead. Thanks, Tenryuu, for the pointer. I don't feel qualified to wade too deeply into this, but my main request would be to try to make the lead flow a little more smoothly than it currently does with the parentheticals. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Right now I think the point of contention is how much we want readers to click to other articles. I personally would prefer to use more concise wording (less is more!); just the wikilink should be fine, especially if readers have enabled "Navigational popups". I think we're extending a lot of leeway in comparison to similar articles as it is. I can see where TechnophilicHippie is going with wikilinking a definition of the term, but if the term is used further down I think it should be explicitly mentioned as soon as possible. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a medical article, and it has a specific set of writing guidelines for technical words - see WP:MEDMOS#Technical terminology. I suggest the editors take time to look it over again if it's been a while. "Encyclopedic writing will naturally teach the reader new words and help them build confidence with harder ones. While this can be done explicitly, with definitions in parenthesis for example, the most natural way to achieve this is to use the idiomatic words, the "proper" words for something, in context. Good writing will allow the reader to pick up enough of the meaning from this context... When mentioning technical terms for the first time, also provide a short plain-English explanation if possible. If the concept is too elaborate for this, wikilink to other articles (or Wiktionary entries)." MartinezMD (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:MEDMOS#Technical terminology: "Is it a term a doctor will have to use with their patient when talking about this subject, or just something only doctors would say or write among themselves?" It is not a term a doctor will have to use with their patient, since a doctor does not ask their patient, "When did you become symptomatic?" It is a term doctors would say and write among themselves.
MOS:JARGON: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do."
Ok, it seems like WP:MEDMOS is being interpreted differently and that there are currently two prevailing stances of how terminology should be addressed:
Use only wikilinks for terminology and have the article written such that context will inform the reader.
Simplify all terminology and do not use them if possible to allow the reader to stay on this page.
On one hand, some of us on here may be influenced by our knowledge of terminology; I personally had no problem understanding that the prefix "a-" means "without", and combining it with "symptomatic" means "without symptoms". That does not mean that my peers necessarily will, so I can see where TechnophilicHippie is coming from. On the other hand, a lot of writing (and reader fatigue) can be reduced if the specialised terms are used, and the reader can follow along the article with a general understanding per MartinezMD. I think there's a case to be made here to ignore "some" rules, as the subject is currently prevalent worldwide and knowledge about the disease can affect how it spreads.
Some questions we should probably ask ourselves and come up with answers we can agree upon:
Who should this article be intended for? The more specific, the better. Is it intended for those who graduated high school or had dabbled a little in post-secondary education? Would the reader be more likely to be hurried while reading this or calmer?
What's our goal to the reader? What (at the very least) do we want them to take away from this article, and at what point?
I might bring this to WT:COVID-19 for more input, or we could try polling random (active) Wikipedians to take a look at the current article and get their thoughts on it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see a dilemma here. We are following medmos as far as I can tell. In the lead we use plain language explanation and introduce the term as required. In subsequent uses, we are using the term alone. Is someone suggesting removing it? MartinezMD (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I consider asymptomatic a relatively generic term (since its use has expanded outside medicine), and able to be inferred from context, but you can make an argument it isn't. We just seem to be making a tempest in a teapot lol. So back to my current point, is someone arguing against the current phrasing? Because otherwise this section is moot, no? And to avoid continuing an already very long discussion, I wouldn't oppose reverting back to your phrasing. I just don't want to see every relatively direct term (like pandemic for example) require a definition. MartinezMD (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu, to clarify, earlier this month, my elderly mother, who lives by herself, informed me that she went to the hair salon to get a haircut. She told me that it was safe, because they used disposable gowns. I had a call with her to establish a baseline of mutual understanding about COVID-19, asking, "Do you agree that COVID-19 can be spread by people who are asymptomatic?", to which she replied, "What does that mean?" (She is knows that the "a" prefix means "without", but she never heard of the word "symptomatic".) I also found out that she thinks a virus is a very small animal that needs food and water, and she thought that the coronavirus doesn't survive very long on surfaces due to starvation from lack of food. My attempt to explain what a virus is wasn't very clear, including saying things like "it's not alive, but it's not dead", and showing her a picture of a bacteriophage. However, I could easily explain that "asymptomatic means they don't have any symptoms". She is regularly on Facebook and knows what Wikipedia is, but her Facebook friends also seem to have zero understanding of science and a very poor understanding of COVID-19. She is still a lot more educated than the elderly parents of my peers, who believe a lot of harmful pseudoscientific misinformation from social media. My point is that Wikipedia is not for "our peers" (people who are similar to us), but for "everyone" (or as general an audience as possible without information loss). I can do nothing but wikilink to virus, but the short explanation of asymptomatic was supposed to be an easy win. TechnophilicHippie (talk)
Wikipedia solves this by linking to asymptomatic. When I don't understand a certain term, I go to the article it is wikilinked to and read the first sentence. I'm all of having articles accessible, but other than serving nothing to disabled individuals, a short explanation in a summary is annoying to a lot of people. Similar to how citation overkill may be benefitial to fact-checkers, but it looks ugly and annoying to many. How hard it is to click that link? Similar to direct interaction: you say "asymptomatic." She doesn't understand and she asks you. Then you explain it to her. Reading a medicine-related article requires initiative-- if you wanna fact-check a stance, you go to the citation, the citation doesn't go to you. Everyone has different levels of knowledge; don't expect an article to fit to everyone's level of knowledge. GeraldWL12:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Even if we did, it's not going to be in this article, as this article is focused on the actual disease and not the pandemic that arose because of it. Your article would be looked at more over at COVID-19 pandemic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - or at a minimum please specify which information you want changed as well as what reliable sources you are basing your desired changes on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you cannot be permitted based on IP address alone, so you need to specify the changes, or create an account that is old enough and with enough edits. (I believe it is about 4 days. I forgot how many edits are required, but a reasonable number.) TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
JBchrch, thanks for the publications. They do not appear to be secondary sources and with WP:MEDRS being scrutinised on this article, we might not be able to use them as they are until they're discussed in another source. MartinezMD, thoughts? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The phrasing is a bit awkward, but it's what we went with at the time. We can use the case report simply as an observational source in the living but not make any inferences about it since there are no secondary sources/reviews about meningeal spread. The autopsy studies would imply it was in the living person before they perished. MartinezMD (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The COVID-19 pandemic is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission among humans
The problem with the statement that SARS-CoV-2 is "responsible for an ongoing pandemic" is that it is an oversimplification of the causal factors that led to and sustain the pandemic. If an infected person goes to an isolated area with 200 people an infects everyone, they are also "responsible" for perpetuating the pandemic. It is not the case that "well, it's a virus, so nothing could have been done, it's the virus' fault."
SARS-CoV-2 circulated in bats before there was a pandemic, so the pandemic is caused by the virus transmission among humans, not by the virus' pre-pandemic existence.
Note, the structure of the lead sentence implies that COVID-19 is responsible for the pandemic (with SARS-CoV-2 being the virus causing the disease). On the one hand, I think this might be splitting hairs about the definition of 'responsible', and whether or not the pandemic would have occurred regardless of human action or inaction. On the other hand, I think your concerns over those who do split those hairs is reasonable, and there's surely an alternate wording that would convey the same information (that there's currently a pandemic of COVID-19 among humans). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The sentence as it is sounds a little too teleological for my liking. Removing responsible for an ongoing pandemic should be enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Bakkster Man, sounds a little too ambiguous for me; "population" sounds too generalised and "pandemic" feels like it's missing something (e.g., an article, but it doesn't make much sense). At the risk of sounding too simple, what about, as a separate sentence, It is the disease of the COVID-19 pandemic instead? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that makes more sense, but it still reads a little clunky. Checking other articles for how they handle this wording:
Alright, so it seems that there's a trend to equate the disease with the pandemic. I like the wording for HIV/AIDS ("considered a pandemic"). Should we consider using this phrasing? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but the current wording seems alright as well (if a bit clunky) First identified in Wuhan, China, it is currently an ongoing pandemic.Bakkster Man (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no source that suggests it takes a "long period of time" for transmission when people are in close contact. I've reverted a change by Dont Askz that claimed that, and now they are edit-warring their change back in. I'm potentially too involved to apply a block for breach of general sanctions, but nobody should be attempting to force their preferred changes into the article by edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the cited sources suggest 15 minutes (or less, WHO also says 'direct contact'). Not what I would consider "long periods of time". If we're going to update that wording (especially if not discussing it here), it should specify that 15 minute threshold in some way. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bakkster Man: The principal sources in Coronavirus disease 2019 #Transmission are https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-how-is-covid-19-transmitted and https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/latest-evidence/transmission, neither of which specify any time period under which close contact may be considered safe. Both sources suggest direct or close contact is the principal mode of transmission, but acknowledge that aerosol transmission may also play a part, and the WHO does state Aerosol transmission can occur in specific settings, particularly in indoor, crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces, where infected person(s) spend long periods of time with others, such as restaurants, choir practices, fitness classes, nightclubs, offices and/or places of worship., but that's the only place in those two sources where I find a reference to a time period. Have we got a good source for a 15 minutes threshold? --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
CDC guidance classifies someone as 'close contact' after 15 minutes within 6' of an infected person.[2] But they don't say less time than that is 'safe', merely that they wouldn't be included in contact tracing efforts. I thought CDC was one of the sources here already. I'm not really in favor of changing the wording, but this 15 minute threshold does dispute the 'long time' wording. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. The WHO considers a close contact as being less than 1 metre (with no time specification), which seems compatible with the CDC's within 6 feet of an infected person for a cumulative total of 15 minutes. Like you, I'm not keen on changing the wording without good reason. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Gam-COVID-Vac
@MartinezMD: I just saw your edits cleaning up the following text:
Only one vaccine, Sputnik V, developed by a research institute in Moscow, has been approved for use in Russia but it has not completed safety trials.
I realised that it now seems to be inaccurate. Gam-COVID-Vac has completed phase I–II trials, so it should have passed its safety tests as I understand the process. It has only just begun its phase III clinical trial, but that is intended to measure its effectiveness unless I'm mistaken. Do you agree with the issue that I see in our text? --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It looks like our article at Phases_of_clinical_research#Phase_III reinforces my rather simplistic understanding that the principal function of phase III is to determine effectiveness. Obviously, with a much bigger sample size than the earlier phases, there should be an opportunity to refine the existing results on safety, dosage and efficacy – for example, some rarer side-effects may be encountered. thanks for the update and for the links. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"Safety" is a relative term with phase 2. Sure, maybe your arm won't fall off, but the Russians only had 76 patients total in Phase 2. You really need Phase 3 to establish broader safety. Post-approval surveillance in phase 4 of a vaccine would continue to review safety profiles, but you see typical approval for broad use of a vaccine after phase 3. MartinezMD (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course "safety" is always a relative term in any testing, and I wouldn't consider safety trials to be "complete" until the phase IV sampling is terminated, perhaps years after approval and introduction. Nevertheless, a candidate drug or vaccine that has passed phases I and II, even with their relatively small numbers, is going to be considered safe enough to enrol tens of thousands of volunteers in the phase III trials. As I understand it, most candidates that fail on safety grounds are identified before phase III. That's probably because no manufacturer is going to invest millions of dollars into phase III unless they are pretty certain that it's relatively safe. Of course, a government-funded organisation may be less affected by those market forces. --RexxS (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Phase 3 is typically considered the safety hurdle before rolling out to the masses. Here're some critiques:
It's not a good idea to use news media as a source for medical information. I recommend sticking with the definitions from
DeMets D, Friedman L, Furberg C (2010). Fundamentals of Clinical Trials (4th ed.). Springer. ISBN978-1-4419-1585-6.
which is used extensively in our Phases of clinical research article, where it is cited as the source for the statement
Phase III ... This phase is designed to assess the effectiveness of the new intervention and, thereby, its value in clinical practice.
I don't have access to a library at present, so I can't give a page number, but the source has stood unchallenged in the article since 2012 and I have no reason to doubt it. --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I surmise that a root problem here is the phrase "safety trials", which doesn't seem aligned with clinical trial phases. As the FDA describes, safety is a continuous clinical trial activity, and the purpose of phase 3 is explicitly described as "Efficacy and monitoring of adverse reactions." The FDA's guidance on EUAs does not prescribe a threshold for safety data - rather, they suggest weighing of risk against competing risks. For statements about vaccines, I don't think WP should speak about adequacy of safety data unless we have a reliable source representing scientific consensus on that. — soupvector (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There are regions where the public health care system is facing extreme overload. I thought it might be good to provide more information about when and how to care for a family member under home conditions, without help of the classical medical care system. I mean information about "What can I do myself when a family member is sick but not in acute danger?". --LucSaffre (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Moving the reference named "NIHGuidelines2020" to {{reflist}} would avoid the duplication of references 100 and 139. I come and ask here first because I saw the six-line warning. Wakari07 (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit to the Coronavirus disease 2019 wiki page from a graduate student for a final project
I believe that the sentence below could be added to the end of the paragraph under Passive Antibodies on the Coronavirus disease 2019 page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019, in order to fully conclude the paragraph and cite a source that researches the efficacy of convalescent plasma transmissions:
An article published in September of 2020 surveys data and concludes that convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in critically ill patients, increase neutralizing antibody titers, benefit clinical symptoms after administration, and evidence shows that the convalescent plasma transmissions were safe and well tolerated by all participants in all studies.
The paragraph would now read ... It has been proposed that selection of broad-neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV might be useful for treating not only COVID-19 but also future SARS-related CoV infections.[424] Other mechanisms, however, such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and/or phagocytosis, may be possible.[422] Other forms of passive antibody therapy, for example, using manufactured monoclonal antibodies, are in development.[422] Production of convalescent serum, which consists of the liquid portion of the blood from recovered patients and contains antibodies specific to this virus, could be increased for quicker deployment. An article published in September of 2020 surveys data and concludes that convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in critically ill patients, increase neutralizing antibody titers, benefit clinical symptoms after administration, and evidence shows that the convalescent plasma transmissions were safe and well tolerated by all participants in all studies.
The source for this sentence is Rajendran, Krishnasamy. “Convalescent Plasma Transfusion for the Treatment of COVID‐19: Systematic Review.” Journal of medical virology 92, no. 9 (September 2020): 1475–1483.
I believe that this would allow the wiki page on the coronavirus to be a little more up to date on treatment options for critically ill patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florencegirl (talk • contribs) 01:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Florencegirl! I took a look at the article you cite to try and see if this edit would help. Wikipedia has a strict guideline on the use of sources for medical information, part of which suggests that large-scale, well conducted systematic reviews, such as those from the Cochrane organization, are the best sources. I was able to find an October Cochrane review which was more current than the September article which concludes that there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend for or against convalescent plasma therapy. I'll note that the Cochrane review only includes 19 completed studies, looked at 138 ongoing studies, and reviewed a total of 38160 patients. The article you wish to use as the citation included only 5 total sources, of which none appear to be RCTs, and the total patient number is 27. For this reason, I believe the Cochrane review's conclusions are stronger for inclusion in this article. The fact that a stronger review of over 1,000 times more patients does not come to the conclusion that it is safe or effective, and actually did find some instances where therapy was not well tolerated, means that we cannot use this lower-strength review to state such in this article. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
^Rajendran, K; Krishnasamy, N; Rangarajan, J; Rathinam, J; Natarajan, M; Ramachandran, A (September 2020). "Convalescent plasma transfusion for the treatment of COVID-19: Systematic review". Journal of medical virology. 92 (9): 1475–1483. doi:10.1002/jmv.25961. PMID32356910.
^Chai, Khai Li; Valk, Sarah J; Piechotta, Vanessa; Kimber, Catherine; Monsef, Ina; Doree, Carolyn; Wood, Erica M; Lamikanra, Abigail A; Roberts, David J; McQuilten, Zoe; So-Osman, Cynthia; Estcourt, Lise J; Skoetz, Nicole (12 October 2020). "Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013600.pub3.
SARS-CoV-2 is also a Neurotropic virus
Would it be possible to add a section indicating how SARS-CoV-2 affects the nervous system?
It is yet unknown the full effect and extent the virus has on the nervous system. In the pathophysiology section it is brought up but we need good secondary sources for the article. MartinezMD (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Not a major issue, but the phrase "when people are near each other long enough" seems a bit awkward to me. Would near each other for a long enough period or near each other for a long enough period of time be an improvement? Or do others feel this would be too wordy? Jr8825 • Talk 20:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Essereio2 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tenryuu, I'm not quite sure how Essereio2's sig ended up here as I originally made this suggestion! I agree that the current text is reasonably clear, my concern was that it sounded a bit conversational. I wondered if spelling it out just a tad more explicitly might help readers whose English is weaker. It's small fry, I know, perhaps a case of WP:DONTFIXIT. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk18:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done
Unresolved
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic § Confirmed vs. suspected deaths. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Long Covid
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Boomer remover. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Boomer remover until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. funplussmart (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: other editors that I have seen tweak terminology (MartinezMD—Gerald Waldo Luis)
This also leads into me starting a conversation about how simple the article content should be made. A simple version of this article exists (which unfortunately gets less traffic than this one), so I believe we can afford to add medical terms (that are appropriately wikilinked). A question that I think will help everyone decide on the level of terminology use and definitions given is: Who is this article intended for? It seems many of the editors who maintain this article feel that people who are ESL should be considered. As this article focuses on an urgent life-threatening disease and receives many daily page views, I personally see no problem with spelling terms out more than in other articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - or at a minimum please specify which information you want changed as well as what reliable sources you are basing your desired changes on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)