Talk:SARS-CoV-2/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

"Wuhan, China" "Wuhan coronavirus" "Wuhan virus"

@Symphony Regalia: Is it really necessary to cite "Wuhan" three times in the opening sentence? Why the insistence? I think this does not improve the article.

How everyone feels about this?

Cheers,

Feelthhis (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Feelthhis: no new information since the NPOVN discussion has come to light that would change my view: as a biomedical topic, this article should hew as closely to WP:MEDRS as possible for such a new and rapidly developing research topic. Since almost no sources that meet that criteria use anything other than SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV, neither should we. Articles that receive more traffic cover the names and the harm they do to overseas Chinese and other overseas East Asians. That said, I respect consensus however it evolves. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia is a POV pushing time waster who loves to WP:BLUDGEON discussions, and who has been blocked twice for wasting everyone's time, there's no point engaging with him. His behaviour borders on being worthy of a topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed editors don't want to spend energy in this 'fight', but that means his POV prevails via brute force while I'm sure the vast majority agrees that this repetitive "wuhan/china virus" is excessive. Thanks for the reply @Rotideypoc41352 and Hemiauchenia: Feelthhis (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous names of the article including the "wuhan virus" are encyclopedic and well cited. We dont have to use MEDRS, high quality RS are sufficient. This talk page attempt at some limited talk page consensus for a controversial issue that has been the subject of repeated interventions is a waste of time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

All-around great points, though if I were you I would ignore Hemiauchenia. As you can see he is known to be a toxic editor. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not envy those who have to balance accurate reflection of consensus and page stability. Considering the situation so far, what do you think we should do next, Feelthhis? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: I think we should always aim to improve the article and my attempt in that direction (in what I think as an improvement) was already made, including contacting the editor who reverted it. From me, that's pretty much it. Feelthhis (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Feelthhis. Wuhan is mentioned because the virus originated in Wuhan, and because several names of the virus have Wuhan in it. If you're referring to attempts to censor the name Wuhan virus, then it is necessary that it remain, because it was and still is used in a wide variety of reliable sources. Even if it were never used again, it was used in so widely in RS means that it would be unencyclopedic to remove it. Note that Wikipedia is not censored: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Symphony Regalia on this one. Previous discussion and consensus was that the moniker "Wuhan virus" should not be given in the opening sentences as a primary name, that it should go in a body section. As S R says, it is a common misnomer in multiple RS and consequently has to be included. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:, not necessarily, most uses of "Wuhan virus" were in newspaper headlines, there have been several discussions about the use of headlines as sources on the reliable sources noticeboard see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Headlines and particularly Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_294#Headlines, which found that headlines generally should not be used to support something contentious that is not supported by the article text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes it easy then. Each instance of the name is cited with a reference. If that reference fails wp:RS, the text "supported" may and indeed should be deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Since we're discussing location-based name-related edits, I've undone Special:Diff/957712550 and returned a wikilink to "Terminology" from "See also". Unlike the film, the wikilink only applies to "Terminology", not the article more broadly. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Symphony Regalia: Hi.
  
  You are claiming the following two pieces yours: a) During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus was commonly referred to as the "coronavirus" or "Wuhan coronavirus",[28][29][30] or "Wuhan virus".[31][32] and b) The general public often call both SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes "coronavirus". Are you absolutely decided that you are not letting go your POV? I don't want to edit war with you. If your answer is yes, then I'll ask for help for dispute resolution, is that ok with you? (ps: ref [32] does not use "Wuhan virus", it uses "2019-nCoV virus").
  
  For other interested editors: my POV translates to a) During the initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, the virus was commonly referred to as "coronavirus" or "Wuhan coronavirus"[25][26][27]. and b) The general public often call "coronavirus" both the virus and the disease it causes.
  
  Cheers, Feelthhis (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Feelthhis. I didn't write those sentences, however you asked for my opinion and three editors have including myself have voiced disagreement with your proposed removal. We've already had recent dispute resolution on this and consensus is that "Wuhan virus" should go in the body section which is where it is. "Wuhan coronavirus" and "Wuhan virus" are different terms but both are used in RS. For example, "Wuhan virus" and not "Wuhan coronavirus" was in the draft of the joint statement on the virus at the G7. The terminology section is brief, has plenty of room, and is supposed to be detailed about terminology, so I'm not sure what your objection is or why you wish to remove the term. Cheers. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Symphony Regalia: Hi. There are some broken references related to the last edits from the Terminology section. This article uses Help:List-defined references (LDR), so when adding/removing references please update the LDR accordingly. Thanks. Feelthhis (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Describing COVID-19 as a respiratory illness

"… (COVID-19), a respiratory illness …"

If I understand correctly, the disease is no longer so narrowly defined; there may be illnesses that are not respiratory.

Grahamperrin (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I came to make a similar point. I've been seeing more sources (i.e. [1], [2]) mention the arguments that it is fundamentally a vascular disease, not respiratory. Even if there is a not a consensus in the medical community, this article should reflect or mention the disagreement imo. - Featous (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan and Italian strains

There have been media reports (Newsweek, NY Times) on a few papers (Scripps, Cell) talking about if the G614 mutation (referred to in the media as European strain/clade or Italian strain) makes it up to ten times more transmissible than D614 (Chinese strain, Wuhan strain), or if the observed transmission differences are largely due to the differing epidemiological responses. Could somebody who knows what they are talking about add this to the section on mutations? - Featous (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Reservoir and intermediate host, non sequitur

In this phrase "Bats were initially considered to be the most likely natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2, but differences between the bat coronavirus sampled at the time and SARS-CoV-2 suggested that humans were infected via an intermediate host." there is a non sequitur because the premise being true (bats are the natural reservoir) and the conclusion (humans were infected via an intermediate host) are not mutually excludable. In other words, we can not say "BUT there is an intermediate host" following "Bats are the natural reservoir", because the BUT seems to negate the premise.Forich (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A natural reservoir and intermediate host are different. What they are implying is that there is a suspicion that it went from bats (res host) to pangolin (intermediate), then to humans. Do not confuse the vocabulary. In another circumstance, there may not even be an intermediate (direct transmission from reservoir host). Asifwhale (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Asifwhale, the "But" in the phrase does not make sense. I changed it to "and" and you reverted my edit. If you want to distinct the case of intermediate host vs no intermediate host, then a better phrase would be: "Bats were initially considered to be the most likely natural reservoir of SARS-CoV2, but they are not considered to be the source of the spillover transmission to humans, which has been suggested that occured via an intermediate host."Forich (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. Bats were the initial candidate. But. There could be an intermediary. Asifwhale (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The "source of the spillover" has not been 100% identified yet. Asifwhale (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

There is an assertion that the particle size of SARS-CoV-2 virions are between "50-200nm" in diameter, however, the cited article for this information cites another article, and no claims as to the size of the virion are made in this tertiary source. I suggest finding another source for this information that directly states through the research it is presenting the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virion. Mircobiofred (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This source offers 125nm direct link, PMC. Another source[3] concurs. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 10:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Similarity of models to certain fruits

Perhaps mention that some

• commons:Category:SARS-CoV-2_illustrations

look quite like

• commons:Category:Broussonetia_papyrifera_(fruit),

(much closer than

• commons:Category:Maclura_pomifera_(fruit)

etc.)

See also https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6754383/the-fruit-that-looks-like-coronavirus/

Jidanni (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps such models from nature would be useful in schools in developing countries, where there are no audio visual materials, but plenty of such trees. Jidanni (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

At the bottom of the section "Infection and transmission", there is an incorrectly capitalised instance of COVID-19 (i.e. only the C is capitalised, as if it were a word and not an acronym). Please can this be corrected? DesertPipeline (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Enivid (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Solely out of curiosity: do some British manuals of style allow title case for acronyms (but not initialisms)? I recall Nasa capitalized as such in a BBC article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Names for COVID-19 prior to official naming

US President Donald Trump has also referred to COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 as "Kung Flu", which is also worth documenting, as there is already a sentence relating to Donald Trump's naming of SARS-CoV-2.He has also referred to it as the "China virus" as well.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Not this again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer reviewed source argues for serial passage

This recent paper in a pretty solid journal: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091

...makes the case that serial passage in a lab should be considered a viable pathway of emergence since it mimics the same molecular processes that occur out in the wild when a virus jumps species. So if a virus can "accidentally" jump species in nature, of course they can be guided to jump species in a lab. Which this paper explains has been done a bunch with flu viruses, making them much more virulent, and leading to a ban on this kind of "gain-of-function" research. But that ban was lifted in 2017, and now virologists seem to be ignoring serial passage as a possible source for the virus, maybe since there's so much funding tied up in it. And of course viruses can leak out of labs, that's been a constant issue since work with them started basically.

Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Do they provide any solid evidence? Forich (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the paper? The point of it seems to be that since the virological community has failed to look into serial passage as a possible source for the virus, that both sides haven't been fully explored yet, so talk of a "conspiracy theory" or that a natural origin is somehow more likely doesn't hold water. That said, it does present a lot of information I haven't seen before about the specifics around how serial passage effects viruses, as well as talking about how the evidence around minks and ferrets indicates serial passage was involved. Plus it makes the point that the flu virus that got out of a lab back in the seventies is now considered the product of laboratory manipulations since a natural route of origin couldn't be established and its genetic distance indicated laboratory manipulation - also the case for COVID, so if historical scientific precedent is followed, COVID should be considered unnatural too unless a natural origin is demonstrated. Harvard2TheBigHouse (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Au contraire! Per Occam's Razor, natural evolution should be the default assumption unless artificial development can be demonstrated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

To join John Maynard Friedman's wagon, who wrote this? What skills, experience, and knowledge do they bring to the table? What methodology did they use for this article? How honestly do they admit what evidence their hypothesis fails to explain? The last part serves as a great smell test: humans designed science to minimize confirmation bias. Trained to be hyper-aware of the foibles of human thought, scientists tend to be skittish creatures, so you see a lot of (justified) hedging in scientific papers. A glaring omission of such caution smells of an unfamiliarity with the discipline, process, or both (charitably speaking), and we must take that into account in interpreting claims. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A contrarian essay like this doesn't constitute WP:DUE weight. It's pretty clear from the response to this that you wish to use this essay to push the WP:FRINGE view that it is plausible that COVID 19 was created in a lab, when most reliable sources disagree with this. Hemiauchenia (talk)

I'm the paper's first author, this is a list of my publications: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=sirotkin_K[auth] plus https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=sirotkin_KM[auth] .

The paper was written without affiliation because I am retired from federal service but remain professionally active, in the past I've also been an Assistant Professor of Microbiology. Writing without affiliation is a matter of ethical guidelines that anyone who's done research or been involved with serious scientific work and federal funding would be familiar.

By passing peer review and being published in a respected scientific journal the opinions expressed in the paper aren't just my own, they're supported as scientifically viable and valid by the editors and the peer reviewers as well. What are the credentials of the people here calling the paper bad science and fringe? Who here is qualified to tell BioEssays that they've published a fringe paper?

This is the paper's sole acknowledgement, I'd be very interested to see which commentator calling this paper fringe or unverified has something like his experience: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/philip-m-murphy-md - his name wouldn't be on it if he thought it wasn't solid science. By refusing to acknowledge the existence of this paper you're effectively censoring scientific progress, plenty of pre-prints already exist also proposing the plausibility of a laboratory origin, and by refusing to add our assertions to this Wikipedia page you're making it harder for the other scientists actually doing the real work, not moderating Wikipedia, to find our paper.

I thought Wikipedia was a place for unbiased truth, not anonymous editors with no demonstrated scientific pedigree whatsoever deciding what peer reviewed material is viable or not. Additionally the point about Occums's Razor is the definition of vacuous, this debate is not happening in a vacuum - the historical scientific precedent is that when a virus's natural origins cannot be demonstrated the default assumption is that it came out of a lab.

That is the consensus of the scientific community regarding the 1977 H1N1 Soviet lab release, not my opinion.

Karlsirot (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I said the idea that SARS-COV-2 was created in a lab was fringe, not that your essay in particular is. WP:MEDRS guidelines are stringent, an I am not sure your essay passes this. @Graham Beards: what do you make of this? I am also opening up a notice on the fringe noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who made the observation about Occam's Razor, I have no issue with "when a virus's natural origins cannot be demonstrated the default assumption is that it came out of a lab". My challenge is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and unless and until exhaustive research has failed to identify the source, it is wildly premature to leap from the most likely to the least likely origin. As of today, it is just silly to say that the origins of this virus cannot be demonstrated, but only that they have yet to be demonstrated. It is certainly possible that it was created in a lab [choose your conspiracy theory from (a) created by Wuhan virus research centre or (b) brought to Wuhan by an American general and released] but we are a very long way from a widely accepted conclusion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I recently attended a seminar where it was reported that there are over eight-thousand wild coronaviridae strands that have been identified in animals but never documented as passing into humans. In short, any one of them could be as bad or worse than MERS, SARS, or COVID-19 (or as innocuous as the common cold). The jump to "made in a lab" for any coronavirus appearing in the human population would fairly require the elimination of all of these as possibilities first. BD2412 T 22:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It took years to find the wild versions of HIV and Ebola, and there are several historical pathogens that predate genetic engineering that have no known animal precursor. There is no justification to conclude, without any evidence, that if it hasn't been found in the wild it must by default be viewed as be engineered. As to the broader issue, including one scientist's speculation, in the form of a published essay, is WP:UNDUE unless this either becomes the viewpoint of a significant number of scientists, or this essay begins to be given significant play in secondary scientific sources (e.g. it is presented as a noteworthy alternative in published reviews). Agricolae (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with BD2412 and Agricolae here. We are not "censoring" anyone, and nobody is automatically entitled to free publicity here. To be frank, quickly leaping from "there isn't yet a detailed story of its natural origin" to "it must have been engineered" is what creationists do. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Our policies on this are clear. As a primary study, this paper is not acceptable as a source. Whether or not the findings are credible, incredible or fringe is irrelevant. Until there are secondary sources, which I doubt will emerge, this paper should be ignored. With regard to the comment "anonymous editors with no demonstrated scientific pedigree whatsoever", that's just rude. We don't require our volunteers to be qualified in anything; we expect them to become familiar with our guidelines and policies, and be nice to one another.Graham Beards (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, while this article fits Wikipedia's definition of a secondary source pretty well, it is definitely an example of bad science. The article unconditionally calls the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic of 1977 as lab-originated as if it is the current scientific consensus (same with H5N1 Bird Flu). While the cited sources either call it as one of the possible versions or call it "unlikely". So, from the point of view of Wikipedia's guidelines, it should be included (because is it fits the "peer-reviewed articles publishing original research" definition), while discarding it due to the obvious lack of integrity might be deemed an instance of original research. It looks like the only policy that would permit not including it (at least until it gets withdrawn) is WP:UNDUE. Enivid (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This primary vs secondary characterization may be following the words of policy, but not its spirit. In distinguishing 1° from 2° MEDRS is intending not (only) to distinguish original scientific findings from papers reporting no research of their own, but (also) to add an extra layer of independence and determination of accuracy and noteworthiness. The repetition and ratification of the primary source's conclusion by the secondary source tells us that an independent scholar thought the information is consequent and authentic enough to merit inclusion in their summary, and hence in ours. On the other hand, the essay in question is not just summarizing the existing body of knowledge as in the secondary sources MEDRS is referring to, but instead using citations as a jumping off point to draw novel conclusions not found in any of the cited sources. In this sense, while it is secondary with respect to the sources it is citing and this would justify including their information in respective articles, it is essentially primary with regard to its novel conclusions and the position it advocates, and would not be MEDRS-compliant for this new spin. Agricolae (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem not to have even read our paper, since you're referring to it as a primary study, by which I assume you mean a "primary source." It is not a "primary source," as no novel data is being presented - this paper isn't about any sort of experimentation I conducted. It is the very definition of a secondary source, which Wikipedia defines as those which "cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources." That is exactly what the paper is doing.

So unless you can explain why this doesn't fit the definition of a secondary source, and so should be mentioned on this page, it becomes abundantly clear that you're attempting to censor this information - something which the reporters from various international newspapers who've contacted me about this paper will likely be interested in, since one of their main angles is the false assertion that a laboratory origin has ever been a conspiracy theory.

Karlsirot (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are convinced your hypothesis is correct, why on earth are you arguing here? This is Wikipedia, not the "letters" page of Nature. Graham Beards (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This argument is based on a flawed premise. Our overarching goal is to reflect scientific consensus, and more generally, the scope of common scientific opinion. There is no mandate that requires the mention of every secondary source ever published, such that the conclusion that a paper is secondary must mean it "should be mentioned on [a] page" or it is censorship. Agricolae (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of any of this, highly qualified virologists have already shown this is incredibly unlikely. i.e. Nature Medicine for the scientific view of emergence in Cell. It doesn't matter that novel data isn't being presented if it synthesises a new hypothesis it is still a primary source. Particularly when that hypothesis is so obviously erroneous. In contrast, the paper in question is unaffiliated with a research institute - the affiliation appears to be residential, and the authors have no expertise in virology. PainProf (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Of note to this discussion, I have reverted the inclusion of this same paper in these places 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 As I considered adding the same source to so many articles that are unrelated to be potentially disruptive. PainProf (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't find any instance left at current time. I'm a little late, but other than the policies that were already mentioned above, this would not be useful for Wikipedia anyway, I'll repeat what I posted at WP:FTN the other day for this page's archives: "Progenitor virus in a lab, or from bats infecting a commercial mink farm", then concluding: "more evidence is required before a conclusive judgement can be made one way or the other". I don't see how such speculative paper is WP:DUE for anything at this point. The above This is Wikipedia, not the "letters" page of Nature is also very relevant in relation to I thought Wikipedia was a place for unbiased truth: Wikipedia is only the place to make a summary of mainstream knowledge. It does not serve its purposes to promote unnecessary uncertainty about the origin until there is solid evidence for that and that reliable sources have widely reported about it. —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Neanderthals Study has not undergone peer review yet

In the summary as well as later in the article there is mention of a July 3rd, 2020 research paper that claims to link major genetic risk factor for human infection with SARS-CoV-2 was inherited from archaic Neanderthals 60,000 years ago. This paper is cited as a source: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.03.186296v1 . There is a bright yellow banner at the top of the cited page that clearly states "these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information." Yet this page (along with many news articles) are using language that heavily implies these are conclusive findings. Until this paper has passed peer review, this information should at the very least be clearly noted as unreviewed and/or preliminary, and not presented as definitive information.

I really don't think it even belongs here until it has gone through review. But I have in the past, opted to appended a note stating it is unreviewed information, as it has shown up in places in this article. However the page is locked now.

What do you all think?

Spoonlesscorey (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Spoonlesscorey:  Done Another classic inappropriate Drbogdan addition, even if it was peer reviewed it shouldn't have been in the lead anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia and Spoonlesscorey: IMO it doesn't belong in the article point blank at least until it's published at a minimum. So I removed it [4] Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreviewed preprint

I think this controversial, but otherwise well-written preprint can be mentioned in the article in the paragraph starting with "It is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically engineered"

https://zenodo.org/record/4028830

205.175.106.163 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Many questions remain unanswered about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Prominent virologists have implicated in a Nature Medicine letter that laboratory escape, while not being entirely ruled out, was unlikely and that no sign of genetic manipulation is present in the SARS-CoV-2 genome4. However, here we show that genetic evidence within the spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 genome (restriction sites flanking the RBM; tandem rare codons used at the inserted furin-cleavage site) does exist and suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 genome should be a product of genetic manipulation. Furthermore, the proven concepts, well-established techniques, and knowledge and expertise are all in place for the convenient creation of this novel coronavirus in a short period of time.

Motives aside, the following facts about SARS-CoV-2 are well-supported:

1. If it was a laboratory product, the most critical element in its creation, the backbone/template virus (ZC45/ZXC21), is owned by military research laboratories.

2. The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has likely undergone genetic engineering, through which the virus has gained the ability to target humans with enhanced virulence and infectivity.

3. The characteristics and pathogenic effects of SARS-CoV-2 are unprecedented. The virus is highly transmissible, onset-hidden, multi-organ targeting, sequelae-unclear, lethal, and associated with various symptoms and complications.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Unreviewed preprints (or new PDFs) are not WP:MEDRS, so we can't include any biomedical info from them. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

wtf ? "See also: Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic § Terminology"

Came here for something else, but the first thing I see under "terminology" is "See also: Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic § Terminology" - wtf? The US really seems to be the center of the world for a lot of people here... Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#An_American_or_European_perspective_may_exist

37.209.66.137 (talk) 08:02, 17 September 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. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

2403:6200:8813:AF44:489E:CEFD:7AE5:DD69 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 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. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2020

I highly disagree that the introduction to SARS-CoV-2 should have ambiguity on the origins of the virus. Even in the WHO link the comment references, it states clearly bats are the origin, and high virus genome similarity. At this point, there is a plethora of evidence to confirm covid19 originated from bats/pangolins in wuhan, hubei (links below), and propagating any uncertainty is doing readers an injustice.

Quote directly from article - "There is no evidence yet to link an intermediate animal reservoir, such as a pangolin, to its introduction to humans.[21][22]"

Thanks - Elliot (Vanderbilt Neuroscience 2015 B.S. , Pfizer Vaccine Research & Development)

Sources for support of clear zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405836/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7384689/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260568/ Guitarguy180 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The intro has no ambiguity on virus origins; the sentence preceding the one you quoted: It is believed to have zoonotic origins and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus. Rather, the sentence in question was misworded. All the sources you've cited use intermediate host; none use intermediate reservoir. Those first source presents uncertainty regarding the identities of any intermediate hosts, most visibly in Fig 6. The second doesn't mention intermediate hosts but does say: Of interest, the approximately 96% similarity of the SARS-CoV-2 at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus strongly suggests the latter as the point of origin,[Zhang et al 2020] although there is some controversy over this.[Cyranoski 2020]. The last paper: Although it still remains unclear which animal is the intermediary host, it is well-known that bats are the main reservoirs for these types of virus and they probably emerged in one of the local wild-animal farms (Giri et al., 2020; Lorusso et al., 2020). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: the article now correctly refers to the pangolin as a possible intermediate host and the bat as the origin/reservoir. While I was at it, I removed information not supported in whatever source it cited to err on the side of caution. For example, the article had info about the zoonoses of coronaviruses when the cited source did not discuss it; as another example, the article stated pangolins were the reservoir host of SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses (which is vague in itself; does this mean betacoronaviruses? SARS-CoV-2 and related bat-CoVs?) but the BMJ source it cited said no such thing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Undone by Asifwhale. I tried. *shrugs* Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Transmission and Reinfection news - worth adding?

Covid-19 virus news about transmission and reinfection was added recently to the main article - but later reverted - the added edit was as follows:

In October 2020, medical researchers concluded the Covid-19 virus can remain on common surfaces for up to 28 days.

In October 2020, medical scientists reported, for the first time in the U.S. and fifth worldwide, confirming evidence of reinfection twice with the Covid-19 virus in the same person.

Question: Is the above edit worth re-adding to the main article (or some other related article) or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

By WP:MEDRS, we need a secondary source, right? That means not the Lancet or Virology Journal, and not NPR. Ideally it should be a major medical body (WHO, CDC, etc) or a meta-analysis, indicating consensus. Until then, I wouldn't consider them appropriate to include. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

Change the text "and the name HCoV-19 was included in some research articles" in the second paragraph of the Terminology section to "and some research articles also used the term 'human coronavirus 2019' (hCoV-19 or HCoV-19)" or equivalent. Kilopylae (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Origin contradiction

Doesn't "It is believed to have zoonotic origins" which is found in the lead contradict with other sentences in the Reservoir and zoonotic origin section that say "The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear" and "research indicates that visitors may have introduced the virus to the market". - Shiftchange (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: I answered an edit request made 4 October 2020 by making all this consistent both within the article and with the medical reliable sources cited: the virus came from bats. I'm not interested in edit warring with Asifwhale over this or otherwise falling afoul of the COVID-19 general sanctions, and I asked the COVID-19 WikiProject for help (albeit before Asifwhale's failure to address any of the concerns you and I share), but nobody came. That said, please feel free to let the WikiProject know about this discussion. I'd usually exhort you to make the changes yourself, but at this point, this looks like a content dispute, and even if I'm too tired to jump through the hoops to get this article to follow the rules, I would like to at least avoid the appearance of canvassing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Methods of detecting the SARS-CoV-2 infection

The Virology section of the article mentions people "who tested positive for viral RNA". It would be useful to add some info about the methods used for the detection of the virus infection. --Rprpr (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition to the 'Terminology' section

The 'Terminology' section makes no mention of the reasoning behind the naming of the disease.

I think the WHO's explanation for why they renamed it from SARS should be emphasised:

"From a risk communications perspective, using the name SARS can have unintended consequences in terms of creating unnecessary fear for some populations, especially in Asia which was worst affected by the SARS outbreak in 2003."

"For that reason and others, WHO has begun referring to the virus as “the virus responsible for COVID-19” or “the COVID-19 virus” when communicating with the public. Neither of these designations are intended as replacements for the official name of the virus as agreed by the ICTV."

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.240.200 (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Please remove "There is no evidence yet to link an intermediate host, such as a pangolin, to its introduction to humans." from the introduction. Both of the sources are from February! We barely knew anything about this virus nine months ago (it had appeared only six weeks earlier), so anything dating from February is utterly unreliable for representing what we currently know about it.

Of course, if there are much newer sources saying the same thing, it would be all right to use them in place of the old sources, but that's a fix too complicated for this simple "please change X to Y" request. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:2057:7B5D:2971:7529 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Neither of those sources appears to have been retracted by their publishers. If you have a newer source with contradictory information, please provide it. We don't delete reliable sources just because they have aged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

English

Please fix the English in "there was significant genetic differences each SARS-CoV-2 variant between infections". Debresser (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Because of WP:MEDRS, I have mixed feelings about including the case studies at all. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible 2012 case in miners in Hunan province, and escape from Wuhan Virology Institute hypothesis

I think reference should be made to the work of virologist Jonathan Latham and geneticist Allison Wilson:

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/the-case-is-building-that-covid-19-had-a-lab-origin/

https://bioscienceresource.org/a-proposed-origin-for-sars-cov-2-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.220.12 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

See also:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0322/v2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.220.12 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this at the RSN, the current concensus is no. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Distracting unhelpful final sentence?

The final sentence currently reads: "Many recoveries from confirmed infections go unreported, but at least 38,717,768 people have recovered from confirmed infections."

I would argue that this perpetuates the idea that the 'recovery rate' means something interesting, whereas it is merely a very vague indicator of the age of the epidemic. Early on - most people 'ever confirmed to be infected' are 'still ill' - and it's really bound to go down over time, with all sorts of artefacts due to features of the data gathering system which have nothing to do with epidemiology per se. Nothing meaningful can be gleaned from tracking recovery rates, even though many govts and members of the press do so. As a final sentence it attracts special prominence, but I definitely recommend removing rather than moving somewhere else, where it would still be spurious. Alexwelte (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

<The earliest case of infection currently known is dated back to September 2019 in Italy/>

Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620974755 24.113.11.216 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done That is a primary report that is interesting but not confirmed; the serologic test used was an "in house" assay that has not been validated. This has also been discussed in some detail on this linked Talk page. Let's see what more reliable sources say. — soupvector (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

On 11 February 2020, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses adopted the official name "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2).[21] the above excerpt is not properly cited. the citation linked does not mention this anywhere. Mbsyl (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Changed to one that does say so. Thanks for the heads up. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Structural biology: Besides ACE-2 and TMPRSS2, neuropilin-1 (NRP1) is thought to be another SARS-CoV-2 infection mediator. NRP1 is a transmembrane receptor to which the viral spike protein is thought to bind after it is primed by cleavage at the furin-cleavage site. Cleavage by furin exposes a C-terminal motif (CendR) which binds to and activates NRP1 receptor leading to cell entry. NRP1-expressing cells are found in the central nervous system and in the respiratory and oropharyngeal epithelium, and they are thought to act as mediators of neurological manifestations seen in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Common and Uncommon Symptoms: Some of the common symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection are fever, cough and fatigue. Some of the less common symptoms include aches and pains, diarrhoea, conjunctivitis, headache, loss of taste and smell, skin rash, and discolouration of hands or toes. Some uncommon symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in children are Kawasaki disease, which causes inflammation of the blood vessels, toxic shock syndrome, which can lead to multiple organ failure and chilblain-like lesions on fingers and toes. Uncommon symptoms in young adults include thrombotic vascular events (blood clots), systemic inflammation, and various neurological complications such as meningitis, brain swelling, and inflammation of the spinal cord. Post-recovery, uncommon symptoms after 95 days can include ringing in the ears, dramatic mood swings, unusual fatigue and other CNS related ailments. Merlion2812 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Reference: Belouzard S, Millet JK, Licitra BN, Whittaker GR (2012) Mechanisms of coronavirus cell entry mediated by the viral spike protein. Viruses 4:1011–1033 . https://doi.org/10.3390/v4061011

     Cantuti-Castelvetri L, Ojha R, Pedro L, Djannatian M, Franz J, Kuivanen S, Kallio K, Kaya T, Anastasina M, Smura T, Levanov L, Szirovicza L, Tobi A, Kallio-Kokko H, Österlund P, Joensuu M, Meunier F, Butcher S, Winkler MS, Mollenhauer B, Helenius A, Gokce O, Teesalu T, Hepojoki J, Vapalahti O, Stadelmann C, Balistreri G, Simons M (2020a) Neuropilin-1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell entry and provides a possible pathway into the central nervous system. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.07.137802

    Cantuti-Castelvetri L, Ojha R, Pedro LD, Djannatian M, Franz J, Kuivanen S, van der Meer F, Kallio K, Kaya T, Anastasina M, Smura T, Levanov L, Szirovicza L, Tobi A, Kallio-Kokko H, Österlund P, Joensuu M, Meunier FA, Butcher SJ, Winkler MS, Mollenhauer B, Helenius A, Gokce O, Teesalu T, Hepojoki J, Vapalahti O, Stadelmann C, Balistreri G, Simons M (2020b) Neuropilin-1 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell entry and infectivity. Science 2985:1–9 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd2985

    Davies J, Randeva HS, Chatha K, Hall M, Spandidos DA, Karteris E, Kyrou I (2020) Neuropilin‑1 as a new potential SARS‑CoV‑2 infection mediator implicated in the neurologic features and central nervous system involvement of COVID‑19. Mol Med Rep 22:4221–4226 . https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2020.11510
     
     Decaro N, Lorusso A (2020) Novel human coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2): A lesson from animal coronaviruses. Vet Microbiol 244:108693 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108693

Esakandari H, Nabi-afjadi M, Fakkari-afjadi J, Farahmandian N, Miresmaeili S, Bahreini E (2020) A comprehensive review of COVID-19 characteristics. 2:1–10Wrapp D, Wang N, Corbett KS, Goldsmith JA, Hsieh CL, Abiona O, Graham BS, McLellan JS (2020) Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation. Science (80- ) 367:1260–1263 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0902

Bozorgmehr K, Narayan L, Radhakrishna R (2020) Supplementary web appendix. Lancet 6736:19802008.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61514-6.WEB-ONLY

Bradley BT, Maioli H, Johnston R, Chaudhry I, Fink SL, Xu H, Najafian B, Deutsch G, Lacy JM, Williams T, Yarid N, Marshall DA (2020) Histopathology and ultrastructural findings of fatal COVID-19 infections in Washington State: a case series. Lancet 396:320–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31305-2

Ellul MA, Benjamin L, Singh B, Lant S, Michael BD, Easton A, Kneen R, Defres S, Sejvar J, Solomon T (2020) Neurological associations of COVID-19. Lancet Neurol 19:767–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/S14744422(20)30221-0

Guarneri C, Rullo EV, Pavone P, Berretta M, Ceccarelli M, Natale A, Nunnari G (2020) Silent COVID-19: what your skin can reveal. Lancet Infect Dis 2019:30402 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30402-3

Jiang L, Tang K, Levin M, Irfan O, Morris SK, Wilson K, Klein JD, Bhutta ZA (2020) COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adolescents. Lancet Infect Dis 3099. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30651-4

Jin JM, Bai P, He W, Wu F, Liu XF, Han DM, Liu S, Yang JK (2020) Gender Differences in Patients With COVID-19:Focus on Severity and Mortality. Front Public Heal 8:1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00152 Menni C, Sudre CH, Steves CJ, Ourselin S, Spector TD (2020) Quantifying additional COVID-19 symptoms will save lives. Lancet 395:e107–e108 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31281-2

2 Qiu H, Wu J, Hong L, Luo Y, Song Q, Chen D (2020) Clinical and epidemiological features of 36 children with

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Zhejiang, China: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 20:689–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30198-5

Tabata S, Imai K, Kawano S, Ikeda M, Kodama T, Miyoshi K, Obinata H, Mimura S, Kodera T, Kitagaki M, Sato M, Suzuki S, Ito T, Uwabe Y, Tamura K (2020) Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in 104 people with SARSCoV-2 infection on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 20:10431050. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30482-5

WHO (2020) Q & A on coronaviruses. In: WHO Q&A coronaviruses.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-adetail/q-a-coronaviruses

Yang L, Tu L (2020) Implications of gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:629–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30132-1

Yelin D, Wirtheim E, Vetter P, Kalil AC, Bruchfeld J, Runold M, Guaraldi G, Mussini C, Gudiol C, Pujol M, Bandera A, Scudeller L, Paul M, Kaiser L, Leibovici L (2020) Long-term consequences of COVID-19: research needs. Lancet Infect Dis 3099:19–20. Merlion2812 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Spin-out article on variants

I've started Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants, using the section from this article and the leads of the three main variant articles as a start. Please edit and expand. Fences&Windows 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

"Recently, new mutation of this virus was discovered called 501.V2 in South Africa. Scientists believe it causes more severe illness in younger patients and is thought to be more deadlier UK mutated strain. [32]"

The term mutation should be replaced by strand or variant and 501.V2 should link to the 501.V2 Variant. This paragraph could look something like this.

"SARS-CoV-2 has a relatively stable genome and most of its mutations are small and irrelevant. The large amount of active cases (over 20 million active cases as of December 2020) increases the opportunity for larger mutations. Two recent strains offer concerns to the scientific community, VUI – 202012/01 in South Africa and 501.V2 in the UK. Both strains appear to be significantly more contagious, but they do not appear to be more lethal and should be equally vulnerable to current vaccines."

nunocordeiro (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This is now mostly fixed. nunocordeiro (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Serotypes

Does anybody know the # of serotypes that COVID has? I googled and couldn't find a specific #. This sentence may also be relevant: The human immune system produces antibodies that target several regions of the spike protein, so it is thought to be unlikely that a single mutation would make vaccines less effective. I think more information about COVID serotypes would be good info to include in the "Interaction with immune system" section of this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that research has been done yet (it can take years). Let's hope the answer is not many and that they cross-react enough for antibodies against one serotype to neutralise the others. I more concerned about how we describe variants. These are common among all RNA viruses (because of their high mutation rate) and most often do not present a particular problem. This variation is called viral quasispecies. HIV is a quasispecies. We have to ensure we don't give the false impression that SARS-Co-2 is at all unusual in this regard, because it isn't. In many ways it's a typical RNA virus.Graham Beards (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Great insights, thank you. Perhaps you or somebody more knowledgeable than me about these concepts can work those ideas into the relevant sections. The relevant sections, in my opinion, are Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Strains and variants, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Interaction with immune system, and Variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Add cite: "The six strains of SARS-CoV-2"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803105246.htm -=-=-24.7.56.99 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Not the highest quality source, but better than no sources. I also added a citation from the Variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The source is not WP:MEDRS compliant and I don't believe it. See my comment above. Graham Beards (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I happened to edit that paragraph earlier today and I ended up deleting this part and this source. Apologies for adding a poor source, I'll start being stricter about MEDRS sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If anyone's considering improving this section, another more recent (but still not MEDRS) source is this one. I'd suggest that trying to categorize things as 'just' 6 strains is a bit oversimplified. There are ~6 strains which are the most prevalent, but even among those there are numerous variants of each, and a whole category of 'other' minor strains. Perhaps referring to them as 'predominant strains', to indicate there may be other less common ones as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The variants article talks about there being at least 4 different "clade nomenclatures", of which the "6 strains" idea (GISAID) is one of the four. Earlier today I updated a couple of articles to talk about the 4 clade nomenclatures, and I deleted mentions of the "6 strains" (except in the detailed variants article), as it doesn't seem that any particular nomenclature has won out yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's definitely competing nomenclatures, which will make it particularly tricky to distill for an encyclopedic article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Interaction with immune system" section

Hey CatPath. I notice you deleted the section "interaction with immune system" today. FYI, bits and pieces from that section show up in 2 other articles: a sentence in Coronavirus disease_2019#Virology, and a paragraph in Variant of Concern 202012/01#Vaccine effectiveness.

You can choose to delete those too if you want. But I'd like to suggest replacing the text with something better instead of deleting it. Even if it's only one sentence.

Because when I first arrived at COVID articles, this was the kind of information I was looking for. I wanted to know the number of serotypes, how many antigens and antibodies there were, things that would help answer the question "does COVID mutate so much that a vaccine will soon be ineffective?" I think it'd be great for our readers if we can get something in there about that.

Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You are asking for information that doesn't exist yet. I have explained this before. And have you read WP:NOR? Graham Beards (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Guess there isn't credible research on this yet. I'll go scrub the articles I mentioned. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Mass

What is the mass of a SARS-CoV-2 virion? Have there been any estimates of its global mass?

kencf0618 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

More a note to self than anything: Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2/Archive 5 § Molecular mass of the fully assembled virus. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this source stating ~10^3MDa, or approx. 1fg. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Merlion2812's edit request last month mentioned host neuropilin-1 (NRP1) may be involved in viral entry and listed some sources. Are those sources WP:MEDRS? Cantuti-Castelvetri et al and Davies et al are the most relevant ones out of those Merlion2812 gave. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

These are both primary sources, rather than secondary. So if we include, we'll need to be cautious not to give WP:UNDUE weight to something that's not yet consensus. Where would you envision this information being included in the article? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: thanks for your response! If secondary sources name NRP1 a host factor, perhaps we can think about adding the information under §Structural biology, near SARS-CoV-2 may also use basigin to assist in cell entry (Wang et al 2020). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, that Wang et al paper appears to be a preprint still (or at least, we're still citing an unreviewed paper). If anything were to be removed, it would be that. But I think the wording in the article used here is could be appropriate for WP:MEDRS, namely If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study. So the question is, how important are these investigations to mention, are they WP:FRINGE, and can we phrase them in a way that doesn't imply WP:UNDUE? I'd suggest a single sentence indicating targets of research without secondary sources confirming them (Basigin and NRP1) could be appropriate, but a simpler solution might be to only mention the seeming consensus position of TMPRSS2 and ACE2. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

NRP1 is discussed in recent academic review articles about SARS-CoV-2 entry. I added one sentence as shown here: [5] CatPath ^{meow at me} 21:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

LDR

@CatPath: hello! The article uses a different reference formatting convention; see Help:LDR. I noticed you undid my edit to stick with LDR; do you plan to seek consensus to change the convention in this article? Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352:, I mistakenly thought that the script you used inserted a hidden list of the full citations in the middle of the article. I reverted back to your edit, except I restored the citation for the review article from Frontiers in Microbiology, which is not a predatory journal. CatPath ^{meow at me} 17:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, CatPath! Out of curiosity, have you found consensus on the reliability of journals Frontiers Media publishes? I have yet to find recent consensus; perhaps you've had better luck? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume that you find Frontiers unreliable because they're in Jeffrey Beall's list of blacklisted journals. The list was generated by a single person rather than an official organization, and he took down his list in 2017. The inclusion of Frontiers in his blacklist has also been questioned: [6]. Certainly there has been past controversy with a few of their journals (none involving Frontiers in Microbiology to the best of my knowledge), but they've long had a seal of approval from the COPE and the DOAJ. CatPath ^{meow at me} 22:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

image is wrong

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11729122 explains this and gives sources for better images.Someone can check the copyright on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

change image2 = 2019-nCoV-CDC-23312 without background.png to image2 = SARS-CoV-2 (CDC-23312).png

Comment: The illustration is outdated; see CDC's webpage phil.cdc.gov/details.aspx?pid=23312. SARS-CoV-2 does not have hemagglutinin esterase proteins shown in the figure; see jaanajurvansuu.medium.com/spot-the-difference-in-sars-cov-2-98bfa0f4da9c. Jaana2021 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done per CDC image as of the edit. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on the lab leak theory

There is an ongoing discussion on the lab leak theory of SARS-CoV-2 and some editors there have commented that it pertains more here in the virus entry, instead of the current location (the entry on the Wuhan Institute of Virology). Please take a look here, comments are welcome. Forich (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Early Italian virus detection

The sentence on Epidemiology that I added is based on a report in an Italian daily newspaper and the British Journal of Dermatology which is ahead of print. Are edits supposed to be coming ONLY from systematic reviews? If not, the requirement of an authoritative biomedical source is met.

See my edit:

 "A University of Milan study has found the virus in the skin tissue of a dermatosis patient, who was asymptomatic, in November 2019. WHO had earlier claimed that this possibility was "unlikely"."

I have replied to this proposal at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, and it might be easier to keep the conversation in one place rather than us repeating it on both talk pages!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Isolation still not properly addressed.

The article does not address the important issue of isolation of SARSCOV2 properly. Did they separate the proposed virus from non-virus material or did they create a mixture of samples, cell culture and other materials and when the cells died claimed to have 'found the virus'? Which one is it? --105.8.4.53 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is covered in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Phylogenetics and taxonomy. We have sequenced genomes and electron microscopy of the virus itself, all referenced in the article. If you think there's something wrong, you need to be more specific (and provide reliable sources for why our existing reliable sources don't accurately reflect scientific consensus). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"This is covered in..." respectfully, no it is not. "We have sequenced genomes and electron microscopy of the virus itself" - also, a factually incorrect statement.

The rigorous definition of "isolated" W.R.T. isolating a genome within a sample of host-organism DNA is: "the virus particles have been fully separated from the host DNA and purified of contaminants of similar size & genomic character". The genomes were NOT from purified virus samples, as confirmed in those cited papers you refer to which superficially purport to have isolated the SARS-CoV-2 genome. E.g.:

Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020

• “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020.

• "The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020

• “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020

• “[We] show an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

Above unsigned comments by 82.71.26.140

Where do you think the genomic sequences come from, if not from isolated SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA? Sequencing necessitates isolation, no need to redundantly state isolation. And yes, they're from isolates. See also [7]. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Which drew some criticism that he was stigmatizing the disease with racial or nationalistic overtones.[41][42][43]"

Could this statement in the article be clarified re.MOS:WEASEL? It is not made clear in any of the sources exactly what individuals or organizations are criticising him. Citation 41 refers to statements given by Michael J. Ryan (doctor) & Tedros Adhanom discouraging the use of the term "Chinese virus". The cited article contains no reference to Donald Trump outside of editorial analysis, which as a source is only reliable for statements directly attributed to the editor or author (see WP:RSEDITORIAL) Meanwhile, citation 42 vaguely describes "Chinese complaints that he has created a negative stigma". Citation 43 is of specific concern as it is incorrectly cited (not attributed to publisher ABC News), and as with 41, Trump is only referenced through editorial analysis and there are no attributed statements in the article that accuse him of what the headline subject suggests. Once again, editorials as a source are only reliable for statements directly attributed to the editor or author (WP:RSEDITORIAL).

I would have applied the "" tag but I am unfortunately relatively new to Wikipedia editing and the article is bluelocked for obvious reasons. I'd appreciate any feedback or opinions regarding this topic. (22:48 UTC, 30th March 2021)

I added three citations, one each for tweets, interviews, and press briefings. I obviously couldn't link directly to a Tweet, but a news article about research into his Tweets seemed like the next best thing for this location. The other two are Youtube and CSPAN clips, each with the applicable quote. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

change U.S. President to Former U.S. President 193.197.66.45 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: He was president at the time of the events described. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection

Currently, the information about the reservoir and zoonotic origin is included as a subsection of "Virology". This is a limiting classification, given that:

• Reservoirs do belong to a virology section
• Zoonotic origins have many ramifications that do not belong to a virology section

For example, epidemiological, veterinary and zoological investigations, and forensic sampling are the disciplines that contribute the most to scientific understanding of zoonotic origins, which is supplemented by virology.

I propose that we create a new section called "Origin and evolutionary history" and that we migrate most if not all of the information currently located in the reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection. Forich (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you expand on your two main points? Particularly, why doesn't a discussion of reservoirs belong underneath a virology sub-heading, and what are examples of zoonotic ramifications which don't fit as part of virology? Ideally some example sources that the information you think should be added but doesn't fit the current article structure might be helpful for understanding the need for the structural change.

If we added an "Origin and evolutionary history" category (not under "Virology"?), would it just include the resevoir and zoonotic discussion, or would it envelop the "phylogenics and taxonomy" and "variants" sections? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you do so, could I kindly ask you please check that the text accurately summarizes the sources and that the sources comply with WP:MEDRS? I've tried fixing both issues multiple times, but Asifwhale kept reverting despite talk page discussions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit war or fall afoul of the general sanctions. Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on this source from an epidemiological journal, the structure used to report on a virus such as SARS-CoV-1 (which is a good reference since many year have passed since its outbreak, so it would more closely resemble an enciclopedic treatment) is the following:

1) Introduction

2) Taxonomy and virology of SARS-CoV

3) Viral life cycle

4) Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus

5) Epidemiological characteristics

6) Clinical features

7) Histopathological changes of SARS

8) Pathogenesis, immune response, and host susceptibility

9) Laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV infection

10) Clinical management and antivirals

11) Infection control and laboratory safety

12) Passive immunization and development of a SARS-CoV vaccine

13) Animal models and animals susceptible to SARS-CoV

14) Should we be ready for the reemergence of SARS?

I hereby ask if this source is an appropiate MEDRS (there has been heated edit discussions in other pages suggesting the mandatory use of MEDRS to source information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2). If the source is ok, we can easily provide a weight analysis, based on count of words or paragraphs, for each of the 14 sections, in order to have an idea of the appropiate length of the origin section (in this case it is section 4: "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus)". Forich (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This source would meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines, as a peer-reviewed secondary source, reviewing the general state of understanding of SARS-CoV-1. But I'm still missing what from this review you want to include in this article. Because at the end of the day, it's about a different virus. You mention the categories and the performing a word count to determine the relative prominence of the various categories, but there's two problems with this. First, this is just one possible structure that this set of authors chose, by no means a definitive one (and arguably, the volume of text for a scientific review versus an encyclopedic article might not match anyway). Second, wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style (WP:MEDORDER) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure.

So again, what specific information about SARS-CoV-2 related to animal reservoirs and zoonosis do you think this article is missing, and why does the current article structure make their addition inappropriate? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Bakkster Man,

why doesn't a discussion of reservoirs belong underneath a virology sub-heading, and what are examples of zoonotic ramifications which don't fit as part of virology? Ideally some example sources that the information you think should be added but doesn't fit the current article structure might be helpful for understanding the need for the structural change.

On the one hand, according to the example source I provided (Cheng et al. 2007), a "taxonomy and virology" section typically includes information on the relation between being in a family of viruses and causing certain diseases, and how isolation and sub culture can be achieved, among other details. On the other hand, a section on "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus" typically includes information on year of emergence, place where the early outbreak ocurred, evidence of earlier cases from retrospective surveillance studies, and candidates considered to be intermediate species, among other details. In the current structure, the virology aspects are mixed with the "reservoir and zoonotic origin", because they are placed together in the same section. To be precise, the main section is called "Virology" and one of its subheadings is "reservoir and zoonotic origin". I propose to create a section called "Origin and evolutionary history" or a similar name, where we move the most if not all of the information of the subheading "reservoir and zoonotic origin". Forich (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Forich's almost sole purpose on Wikipedia over the past year has been to push for the credibility of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory, which is probably what he is trying to do here. I don't see why we should restructure the entire article around the the structure of a particular research paper anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I figured it was something along these lines, hence my focus on what exactly the goal is and suitable sources that would fit here. If there aren't any, it's not worth it. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RE: Bakkster Man,

wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style (WP:MEDORDER) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure.

Thanks for the wiki source, I was not aware of it and will read it before commenting further. Forich (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man, the guidelines that you linked (WP:MEDORDER) do not have a specific stucture suggested for viruses, and it looks like there won't be any movement soon towards a standard (that's what I got from my interactions with editors in Wikiproject viruses). In the absence of a Wiki guideline my point to alter the current structure to mimic the MEDRS Cheng et al. (2007) stands. Forich (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair point that MEDORDER might not help us here. While there may be value in looking to published sources for guidance on structure and terminology (as with everything on Wikipedia), I still don't think that wholesale copying or mimicking the format of a single journal article (no matter how good) is the right call. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Bakkster Man,

If we added an "Origin and evolutionary history" category (not under "Virology"?), would it just include the resevoir and zoonotic discussion, or would it envelop the "phylogenics and taxonomy" and "variants" sections?

Based on MEDRS Cheng et al. (2007), phylogenetical information such as comparisons of nucleotide variations in candidate intermediate hosts, phylogenetic distance between strains at the start of the outbreak with later clusters, and phylogenetic trees associating the virus with strains found during animal surveillance pertain to the section "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus", which I propose to rename in more lay terms as "Origin and evolutionary history". Forich (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus" section in this article to rename. If you think there's content worth adding to the "phylogenics and taxonomy" section, do it. If it gets unwieldy and worth splitting, then we can consider placing the "Origin and evolutionary history" related content in a "Origin and evolutionary history" subsection. Until then, this is much ado about nothing. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

RE @Rotideypoc41352,

If you do so, could I kindly ask you please check that the text accurately summarizes the sources and that the sources comply with WP:MEDRS? I've tried fixing both issues multiple times, but Asifwhale kept reverting despite talk page discussions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit war or fall afoul of the general sanctions

Can you please provide diffs or at least an approximate date of the aformentioned discussion in which you tried fixing the issue of an imperfect structure? I looked for it in the archives with no success. Forich (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Restrospective surveillance in China

I propose we add this phrase: "Results from Chang et al. (2021) suggested that most of the population in Wuhan remained uninfected during the early outbreak of COVID-19. They also report an extremely low antibody prevalence among blood donors during the early phase of the outbreak in Shenzhen and Shijiazhuang.". Source here. Forich (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS, and Chinese research. So not reliable for anything. Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Chinese research. So not reliable for anything."

RACIST

Can we get a ban for this Nazi ahole?

Above unsigned comments by 82.71.26.140

82.71.26.140, if you have an issue of a user conduct-type of dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Forich (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Index case

According to a MEDRS "the first known case of infection dates to 8 December 2019". Source: Hu et al. (2020). However, we currently say in the article that "The earliest case of infection currently known is dated to 1 December 2019, although an earlier case could have occurred on 17 November 2019.". But the source for this claim is not a MEDRS. I propose we stick to the Dec 8 date, as supported by the MEDRS Hu et al. (2020). Forich (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Allam (2020) MEDRS? This chapter from a 2020 book published by Elsevier is currently the source for the "December 1 with possibility of November" date of the index case. If this is not a MEDRS I propose we stick to Dec 8 as stated in Hu et al. (2020). Forich (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Guest2625, who inserted the source: can you confirm if Allam (2020) is a MEDRS? Forich (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is still incorrectly using the Dec 1 date as the date of the onset of symptoms of the index case in Wuhan, sourced to a non-ideal RS (a book from a non-specialist that tangentially deals with the index case). This needs to be fixed by inserting the Dec 8 date sourced with the WHO report, and an accompanying phrase referencing three alleged cases from < Dec 8 that the WHO study qualifies them as "excludable on the basis of the clinical features of their illnesses". If anyone reads this and wants to do the edit please fix it. My latest attempt to edit the date was reverted on the basis of an unclear "Seems to be avoided sources" Forich (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor detail in Variants section

May I suggest two small edits to the first bullet under Variants: From: The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) is believed to have emerged in the United Kingdom in September. To  : The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) was first detected in the United Kingdom in September 2020.

Reason: Change 1: due to the very high rate of testing in the United Kingdom new variants are more likely to be found. Change 2: add year after September to improve clarity.

Forgive me if I have transgressed any talk rules - this is only my second proposed edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDOUBTEDIT (talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the CDC source, This variant is estimated to have first emerged in the UK during September 2020. So unless there's a citation to the contrary (Lineage B.1.1.7#Detection has a few sentences to this effect, but cites news articles rather than WP:MEDRS secondary sources, might be a place to dig for something meaningful), I think "believed to have emerged" is accurate for this specific lineage. I've added the year after September, and cleaned up the references to the UK and South African detected variants. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

consider putting r0 in the intro

where r0 is essentially given, consider putting r0 in (r0) as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4080:3680:EDBC:6F40:7E7:C9B7 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2021

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, most participants in this discussion believe that the longer name is more in line with article titles policy, particularly consistency. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → SARS-CoV-2 – One year after the virus that cause COVID-19 was named and declare pandemic, it seems that more reliable sources, even for medical ones like BMC are more refer the virus aa shortened name rather than full name. I believe that there will be more opposer for that move because WP:MEDTITLE argument becaue IMO, the article's lead needs to retain the full name but article title will be moved to shortened name. 114.125.47.159 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like the process you are looking for is WP:RM, not Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 04:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Google web results 107 million vs 2 million. Google scholar results 797k vs 84k. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:CRITERIA of Consistency, current title matches Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus. Distinct from my preference on the rename for COVID-19, the WHO currently lists Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as the WP:OFFICIALNAME that we should prefer given WP:MEDTITLE.[8] While the acronym is shorter than the full title, I don't believe WP:CONCISE particularly applies to acronyms, and rather is intended for removing words while still being sufficient information to identify the topic (see example given: State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations → Rhode Island, not SoRIaPP or RI). While the "COVID" in COVID-19 is unambiguous (per WP:ACROTITLE), "SARS" is not.[9] While this direct topic didn't come up in a short move discussion last year,[10] I would propose that the use of a title beginning the ambiguous acronym SARS would be worth avoiding across all related pages. Particularly given consistency with other virus article titles. If sufficient examples of virus article titles using acronyms (especially if beginning with shared acronyms), I could be persuaded to change my vote. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with similar articles such as Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus and Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with the reasons stated above by Bakkster Man and Rreagan007. I honestly believe it's better to keep the full name as the title rather than the formal abbreviation of the name, in the same way other related articles remained with the full name for several years ("Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus" instead of "MERS-CoV" and "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus" instead of "SARS-CoV", as Rreagan007 mentioned). Also, arguments which argue that numbers of web results prove WP:COMMONNAME are fallacious, this is because abbreviations or shorter names or (even incorrect spellings!) will commonly have more mentions along the texts. I give you two examples: "Coronavirus disease 2019" vs "COVID-19" vs "Covid" (wrong spelling) gets [770M, 5970M, 6230M] results; "Donald Trump" vs just "Trump" gets [730M, 1130M] results. The recent discussion on moving "Coronavirus disease 2019" to "COVID-19" had strong support with this argument but, with the same flawed logic, we should move "Donald Trump" to "Trump" because more than 64% of all the results of "Trump" refer to (or mention) the person "Donald Trump" (WP:COMMONNAME). On this basis, arguments could also be made to redirect "Trump" to "Donald Trump", instead of to "Trump (disambiguation)", the same way that "Kanye" redirects to "Kanye West" instead of "Kanye (disambiguation)". Anyway, apart from these arguments and comparisons, on the basis of the arguments given on several discussions so far, I don't support the move for this page, nor the following move requests to shorten the name of the pages for other human coronaviruses. In the unlikely chance that the scientific and medical communities decide to do a full renaming of all of these viruses and diseases, I will be open to reassess my POV. ACLNM (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that the item that swayed me for COVID-19 was the WHO's change no longer officially listing "Coronavirus Disease 2019" as the official designation, suggesting that even they had moved usage. Here, we're discussing moving away from the official name to the official acronym. Though, combining the official WHO naming guidelines (where they intentionally avoid using SARS-CoV) with WP:COMMONNAME would suggest the title COVID-19 Virus, which isn't the suggestion here (and would also be a bad change). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Google web results 107 million vs 2 million. Google scholar results 797k vs 84k. LordParsifal (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose For consistency with other articles. If a move is to be proposed it should apply to all of them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose For consistency mainly. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:38, 16 March 2021 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Please, change the virusbox Jaana2021 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2021 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

fixing transclusion problems

Mathglot, I see that you manually undid work I did yesterday to fix transclusion problems in this article. The COVID-19 Pandemic article transcludes several sections from this article. Transcluded content sometimes includes references. Since the transclusion includes only the targeted section, that section must be self-conained. More specifically, it must contain the reference definitions it uses and the references can't be elsewhere in the article or in the {{references}} tag itself.

When you reverted my fixes, you re-introduced visible "undefined reference errors" to the COVID-19 Pandemic artilce. You might have damaged other articles, as well.

It's not clear to me what your goal is in moving the reference definitions to the {{references}} tag. If it's absolutely necessary, another solution must be found in order to keep the transcluding articles intact. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Text copied to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

Hi All, per Diannaa's request, a quick note that I copied a number of paragraphs and research here into the article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. That copying was later transformed by more competent editors into transclusion (if that's the right term?). My goal was to ensure that readers eager to learn about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 would be actually informed about the state of current scientific understanding — and thanks to your hard work here, I think they now will be. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

change U.S. President to Former U.S. President 193.197.66.45 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: He was president at the time of the events described. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Reservoir and zoonotic origin: "A March 2021 WHO report on a joint WHO-China study stated stated that human spillover...". Please change "stated stated" to "stated".

I would also suggest to remove the unused IJID-interm-host entry from the ref list. The currently used one WHO_GlobalOrigin_China seems way more updated: relevant diff. Alternatively just comment it out for eventual future use. This relates to the same section, a couple of paragraphs lower. Personuser (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Took care of the “stated stated” bit, that’s fairly obvious, but I can’t easily review the other part of the request at the moment. Leaving this open. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 00:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. Just to be clear, my second request was mainly aiming at a quick fix of the cite error, leaving the judging of whether the old source could be useful to editors more familiar with the article and/or subject and the up to date difference I pointed out was rather superficial. Commenting it out seems like sweeping under the carpet and, if deleted, the ref would still be recoverable from the history. Using the same older ref to support some other existing or added sentences seems a perfectly fine and probably better solution, leaving the ref more easily accessible, but I didn't and probably won't really consider the matter from a content-wise point of view. Personuser (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright,  Done. I went with the commenting-out method since I'm also not particularly familiar with the article and left it there in case any editors find that they need another reference; it'll be more easily accessible. Thanks, Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Could the term COVID be added here

"The general public often calls both the virus and the disease it causes, "coronavirus"."

Could the term "COVID" also be mentioned here? I have heard and seen the term COVID be used more than "coronavirus" nowadays..--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The term COVID-19 is used throughout the article, including in the hatnote at the top of the page: This article is about the virus that causes COVID-19. I'm not sure we need more than that on this page. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The question is really about the statement "the general public often calls", which of course needs a citation, but in vox pops that I've heard on TV, US/CA usage seems to be "Corona" and European (and Mexican, I suspect) is "Covid" and specifically "long COVID". It is a long time since I've heard anyone use the term "coronavirus" for the disease. IMO, that sentence specifically needs to be changed since, as HighlyLogicalVulcan points out, it is at best no longer true. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, the sentence is at least partly about conflating the terms for the virus and the disease, and I guess this hasn't changed as much as the terms used, so adding "COVID", which probably gained more popularity, seems reasonable and doesn't have a lot to do with the use of the term in the rest of the article. Updating the sentence or putting it in the past tense seem also valid options. Personuser (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

On this note, I think there's precedent to simply not dig into all the pseudonyms of the disease caused by the virus on this page. See Poliovirus, Influenza A virus. That said, 'the coronavirus' is a colloquial term for the virus and makes sense to keep (even if not in the lede due to being outdated, in the history of the terminology which is the first article section after the lede). But COVID is a colloquial term for the disease, and probably makes more sense to keep on articles about COVID-19 itself rather than here. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course! "Covid" and "Corona" are familiar names for the disease, not the virus. I walked straight into that lamp-post! Comment scratched. ==John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That was a good point. Guess conflating the names of the virus and the disease it causes isn't really specific to this case and the hatnote takes care of this. On the other hand coronaviruses where pretty much ignored by the general public before this one showed up and this coupled with the initial uncertain naming makes it more worth mentioning and arguably related to virology. Personuser (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback everyone! Would it be okay if the sentence was reworded to "When the pandemic began, the general public often called both the virus and the disease it causes, "coronavirus"? This works better as nowadays the general public typically calls it "COVID", which is less confusing since coronaviruses are and always will be a group of viruses, not just one. The general public understands this by now calling it COVID, so the "general public" section of the article should be rewritten in the psst tense to reflect that.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How about this very small tweak? Also colloquially known simply as the coronavirus... Get's across that it's a colloquial name, makes it clear it's an alternative rather than the primary, and corrects the name bolding to include 'the'. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This works well! Well written and a lot better than "general public often calls both the virus and the disease it causes, "coronavirus".", since they actually call it "THE coronavirus". Your tweaked version should be added to the article.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to suggest another tweak to the "general public" section of the article. "The" should be added after "coronavirus" because the general public calls it "the coronavirus", not "coronavirus".--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Both changes made. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Article looks a lot better now.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to editors

I thank all of the reasonable and hard-working editors who have been meticulously updating this extremely important article, which is well-structured and well-written, and its related companion articles. Acwilson9 (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Origins and actual science

I came upon Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (18 March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover model to the viral circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. ISSN 1567-1348. while looking for something else. After making an overview of existing hypotheses (they do mention "A parallel ‘digital pandemic’ (overcommunication on more or less probable ‘scientific hypothesis’) developed on social networks, bringing opinions and conspiracy theories, generating anxiety and irrational behavior."), the authors propose not a zoonotic spillover (as is the current consensus) but instead a "circulation model" where the virus did not suddenly jump but might have already been circulating for a while. It is a review from a reputable MEDLINE-indexed journal. Does anybody know of other papers which mention this? I'd include it as is but due to the fact it is the only paper I have found so far that would make this a minority position so possibly UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Maurin, Max; Fenollar, Florence; Mediannikov, Oleg; Davoust, Bernard; Devaux, Christian; Raoult, Didier (17 April 2021). "Current Status of Putative Animal Sources of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Humans: Wildlife, Domestic Animals and Pets". Microorganisms. 9 (4). doi:10.3390/microorganisms9040868. ISSN 2076-2607.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Found this (citing the first paper), which does mention that "there are currently two models for viral emergence". While it does seem to support that the "circulation model" is not the "widely accepted" one, it's already another source which might justify some short bit of text. What you think? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Interesting. I just finished reading the first paper but haven't read the second. This would be an excellent example of a minority scientific opinion. They acknowledge the existing consensus, and attempt to formulate what they believe is a better explanation using the same consensus observations. As a policy analyst, real minority scientific opinions also offer real policy options (although the "circulation model" policy suggestions are probably infeasible). The "spillover model" is still the scientific consensus for many good reasons, and it is a better explanation for previously observed zoonotic diseases like Ebola and HIV, which we know with certainty were not circulating in human populations prior to specific singular zoonotic events. Now, as a Wikipedia editor, I'm not sure how to integrate this into the article. The mention of why the lab leak is improbable is useful. And a writeup of this hypothesis could be used as part of an explanation of what real minority scientific views look like. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• One quick note on the second study, which I haven't read yet, but the name Didier Raoult is familiar, and a quick search shows that he is familiar for all the wrong reasons. Apparently he was one of the most vocal proponents of the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  You're correct, didn't do a check on the second paper: it is in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal from MDPI so it's probably not a very good citation for our purposes. They don't seem to be mentioning hydroxychloroquine, though, so that's a start. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

One passage is neutral and and the other is a POV. Hard to reconcile these two, I dont see how this could be done without an RFC. But something needs to be proposed for an RFC to do that (RFC Brief, haha) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The POV claims from the first linked article have already been removed. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

In the introductory section, the second to last sentence is outdated and potentially spreads dangerous misinformation: "The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via respiratory droplets produced from coughs or sneezes."

The references cited here are from January and February 2020, and are out of date. We now know that SARS-COV-2 is spread primarily via aerosols, not the kinds of droplets produced by coughing or sneezing. See the updated CDC guidance from May 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html; and the updated WHO guidance: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted. At the very least, the sentence should be updated to be more inclusive of the ways that it spreads, something like:

"The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via aerosols produced when talking or breathing, and to a lesser extent from respiratory droplets generated from coughs or sneezes." 130.154.3.250 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've updated the text, although with some minor changes from the suggestion to improve accuracy and readability. It now reads The virus primarily spreads between people through close contact and via aerosols and respiratory droplets that are exhaled when talking, breathing, or otherwise exhaling, as well as those produced from coughs or sneezes. Thanks for catching that outdated info, by the way. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Date format on section Virology, subsection Structural biology

Per WP: MOS:

Dates, years, and other chronological items should be linked only when they are relevant to the subject and likely to be useful to a reader

. This phrase

By 22 January 2020, a group in China working with the full virus genome and a group in the United States using reverse genetics methods independently and experimentally demonstrated that ACE2 could act as the receptor for SARS‑CoV‑2

can be replaced with "By January 2020..." with no loss of specificity for the reader. The addition of the exact day (or hour) adds very little information. Perhaps it was informative at the time it was edited for the first time and events were developing fast but, now, more than a year later, having the date "22 January" for this non-chronological piece of information looks overkill to me and interrupts the flow of readability. Pinging @Hyperion35: who reverted this edit. Forich (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that the quoted policy is for linking the date, as in "By 22 January 2020". Not necessarily for giving a vague or specific date absent a wikilink. More notably, your edit added 35 characters, rather than making the passage more brief.

This is just one of seven references to specific dates in January 2020 in the article, so I'd be interested in hearing if you have a specific reason you feel this single reference should be reworded or just generally why you think the article would be improved by trimming them. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a full look at that section of the manual of style makes it clear that this is only when linking to a date, as that section goes on to explicitly mention how to format a date properly. Given the time period covered, I'd think that being specific about the date adds information, given that we also specify December 1 as the date of the first confirmed infection. This was a period of time when what was known was changing by the day and week. It also seemed that giving a specific date was more encyclopedic than "soon after the virus was discovered". Hyperion35 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The other mentions of specific dates seem justified because they are written in a chronological fashion, with the tone of a news narrator that gives dates and explains the events. Mea culpa on the wrong reference to MOS, it is indeed valid for linking dates. I can see where you are coming from by supporting leaving the exact date. In this section, the tone is clearly not chronological, and it reads odd being in a very timeless section like "Structural biology". The analogy would be to have an entry on "Properties on cement", and stating that "Research made on 22 January 1850 found that mixing water and sand produces cement". The meat of the piece of information seems to be on the fact found, not on the date. If no other editor notices this part misplaced I guess it is not a big deal and we can leave it as it is. Forich (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

One last point: take a look at Influenza#Virology, no exact dates there, once the information is stable (many months after the virus properties are studied) it just seem too much to include exact dates. Forich (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd probably update that from 'many months' to 'many years'. I also think the more suitable reference for precedent is another specific pandemic viral strain, such as Pandemic H1N1/09 virus, where there are significantly more dates referenced. Most relevant, the specific dates of genetic sequencing milestones (the edit that prompted this discussion).

But I otherwise agree, eventually not every item needs a specific date. I don't think the issue with the first edit was so much removing any date ever, but with the edit being a longer-winded replacement for a succinct date, and the specific date being removed being a notable one. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting R0 estimates

The opening of the article currently lists an estimated base reproduction of around 3, but later sections of the article cite a much higher number. 135.180.132.137 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The source for the first number (2.39 to 3.44) is a meta-analysis citing the source for the second one (5.7), so if there isn't some other catch it should have precedence. Personuser (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

Please replace

The [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus has been estimated to be around 5.7.<ref name="high contagiousness" /> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 5.7 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.

with

A meta-analisis from november 2020 estimated the [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus to be between 2.39 and 3.44.<ref name="reproNumber"/> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 2.39 to 3.44 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.

and

<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>

with

<ref name="reproNumber">{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>

per Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Conflicting_R0_estimates. While it seems reasonable to point out how these estimates may change, the Transmission_of_COVID-19 article covers their history using the same refs and, while it's true that this number has been estimated to 5.7, using two different numbers in different parts of this article seems just confusing. The ref name is debatable and I couldn't check if the syntax really works. Personuser (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. To double check your code, you may want to try the sandbox. TGHL ↗ 🍁 04:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Have you considered putting in a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks? This would alleviate the need for each of these templates to be changed manually. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The template doesn't seem to be really that common [11] and the ideal substitute in a particular article may vary. I also wanted to note that the talk page template was changed to Hong Kong English. I can't really tell how appropriate was this choise, but the two matters should probably be considered together. Personuser (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Personuser: I don't know what specific differences there are between various Commonwealth varieties and British English, but changing it to "British English" on all pages likely wouldn't be controversial. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either. The only thing I was able to quickly notice is the use of "center" instead of "centre", but probably only related to official names, which shouldn't be changed. This pretty much boils down to choosing a variant and letting grammar savy editors fix discrepancies, so if other editors don't have some strong opinion about it, British English should be ok. Personuser (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject COVID-19

Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation(s) for the lab-leak origin hypothesis (currently tagged [citation needed])

Informal hatting: as I began the below discussion without enough knowledge of the relevant policies, the discussion grew too long and complicated to be of much use. Please join the better-structured discussion over at WikiProject COVID-19. SSSheridan (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have my 500 edits yet, so I'm here to suggest some citations to use at the ^{[citation needed]} around the laboratory-leak hypothesis.

I'm not here to debate the origins of the virus, just to try to improve the quality of a couple of sentences, so please bear with me without biting my head off. I think we can all agree that the article would be improved if the following sentence gets its citation:

A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, without direct evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.^{[citation needed]}

Now, this sentence is combining two different things: 1) claims by virologists that the virus likely leaked from the Institute, and 2) calls for further investigations into the matter. The former is indeed restricted to a minority of virologists; but the latter has been called for by the WHO Director-General (Tedros):

The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy." WHO Director-General, in comments on the WHO's March 2021 report.

Given this, the above-quoted sentence should be divided in two: 1) a small number of virologists have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, and 2) some, including the WHO Director-General, have called for more extensive investigations into the possibility of a laboratory leak origin.

For (1), the few scientists who have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, I suggest the following citations:

• A primary source: the Nicholas Wade article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (May 5, 2021), which quotes former CDC director Robert Redfield and Nobel Laureate David Baltimore supporting the laboratory leak hypothesis.
• Secondary source: the May 17 Washington Post editorial which cites the Nicholas Wade article, among others.

To be clear: I'm aware that this is not peer-reviewed science. I am aware that Nicholas Wade and Robert Redfield have had some unsavory views. But we're just looking for a citation about "some scientists supporting the laboratory leak hypothesis."

Now, for (2): some have called for further investigation into the laboratory leak possibility:

Primary sources of calls for further investigation:

• WHO Director-General being quite explicit in the above quote;
• an EU statement and a joint statement from 14 countries, including the US, UK, Canada, Japan, and South Korea, both expressing support for Tedros's concerns, though these do not explicitly mention the laboratory leak hypothesis.
• The Science letter [12]. (The objections I've read above are based on the idea that a "letter" is just an opinion of a few scientists, without peer review. That's not entirely accurate - the editors of Science considered it credible enough to publish it. I'm not here to debate the merit of the hypotheses, just to suggest citations for "calls for further investigation." I think a Letter in Science fits the bill.)

Secondary sources covering the above calls:

• the New York Times article based on the Science letter, with further context and statements from the scientists involved;
• an April 7 New York Times article which includes Tedros's comments about the WHO report; and
• the Washington Post's May 17 editorial supporting the "both theories remain viable and must be investigated" position of the Science letter.

Given all of the above, I propose the following replacement:

A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, without direct evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[citation needed] [...] the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[95][75]

to

A small number of scientists have supported a hypothesis that the virus escaped from the research laboratories of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[[13] The WHO, in its March 2021 report, considers a laboratory origin "extremely unlikely", although the WHO Director-General expressed dissatisfaction with the extent of the assessment, and called for further investigation.

My apologies if this draft sounds too pro-lab-leak; I have attempted to simply write a version which tells the bare facts. You (the more experienced editors) are obviously welcome to edit as appropriate. SSSheridan (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that "expressed dissatisfactoon with the extent of the assessment" makes it sound as though he disagrees with the conclusion that a lab leak was unlikely. It was my understanding that Tedros agrees with the conclusion that a leak was "extremely unlikely", he was simply calling for more investigation. As you say, it is important to distinguish beteeen those ideas. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added some of the suggested citations (minus the piece by Wade and the op-eds in the WaPo, since op-eds are rarely a useful source) since that was what I was looking for and couldn't be bothered to search yesterday. The suggestion about Tedros expressing "dissatisfaction with the assessment" is misleading, since what he seems to have been calling for is indeed more investigation, and that matches the other sources (some governments, ...). I think the current text gives sufficient weight to this idea, without giving it undue legitimacy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, looks better now. Two quibbles about the comments above:

• • Hyperion35: the Tedros comment did not, in fact, agree (nor explicitly disagree) with the "extremely unlikely" conclusion. "Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy."
  • RandomCanadian: I don't disagree with the choice to exclude the WaPo editorial, but I would point out the distinction between an op-ed, written by one person and published as part of a diversity of opinions, vs an editorial, which is the consensus opinion of the paper's editorial board. This editorial would have had the Post's qualified science reporters involved.

I agree that my "dissatisfaction with the assessment" wording (while literally true) granted undue legitimacy. On the other hand, in my (hopefully well-considered) opinion, the current wording does not grant sufficient weight. The current wording says "a few individuals" but then, as a citation, cites Tedros. Furthermore, the current sentence positions the March 2021 report ("extremely unlikely") as a response to such calls for further investigation, whereas, in fact, Tedros's call for further investigation was in direct response to said March 2021 report.

I am not pro-lab-leak (and I have all my fingers crossed that the virus did not originate in a lab), but at the same time, the certainty with which it has been rejected is quite galling to my old-fashioned Popperian sense of scientific (un)certainty. Apropos to this particular article, I can't see the current wording being a fair representation of our current state of certainty.

(I hope it is clear that the lab leak hypothesis does not mean deliberate bioweapon engineering, just a poorly considered experiment followed by an ordinary instance of imperfect sterile technique. Plausible? That's not for me to say, but the editors of Science did decide to run the letter written by non-fringe "scientists with relevant expertise.")

I would point to Derek Lowes's May 19 post, not as a citation for Wikipedia, but just as a responsible take on the topic given what we know. "So it’s all an open question, unfortunately. And I think it’s important for people to realize that it’s an open question, and that we need a lot more hard evidence before anything can be said for certain."

The profile of those expressing "both hypotheses remain viable" has risen since a couple of months ago. The current wording does not reflect that change. I understand the total shitstorm that could result from irresponsible discussion of the possibility. However, that possibility has been published in Science and other outlets. Wikipedia should try to avoid being misleading, which I find the current wording to be. SSSheridan (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What does "The profile ... has risen" even mean? Sure, political agitprop (particularly in the USA) has increased and some scientists are making a fuss (as with minority positions in most science controversies) but in the best RS that has been no shift. Saying "both hypotheses remain viable" without any mention of likelihood as put forth by our best sources, would be economical with the truth of what those sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it's referring to the difference between last year's open letter denouncing any suggestion of the lab leak by scientists, and now when it's at least acknowledged as an unlikely possibility. But these pages have undergone a significant change in tone this year which reflects that, particularly with the WHO report evaluating an accidental lab release. We now mention it (with DUE weight), whereas in January it was not mentioned at all. So I disagree that The current wording does not reflect that change, unless SSSheridan can give a specific example. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the current Wikipedia wording says "a few individuals... called for further investigation...the March 2021 WHO report...stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely"." Whereas, the words that I've found on www.who.int say the exact opposite order: the March 2021 WHO report stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely," but the WHO Director-General said, in direct response to that report, "The team also... considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation."

I'm not here trying to create trouble, so please don't make me spell out how "a few individuals have called for further investigation... the WHO report says this is 'extremely unlikely'" is not a fair representation of "the WHO report says this is 'extremely unlikely'...the WHO Director-General said of that specific claim, 'I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough...this requires further investigation." I'm not trying to spread conspiracy theories. I don't want the lab leak hypothesis to be true. My problem is that the current wording just plain doesn't represent what has been said.

You allude to due/undue weight. To quote WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." The viewpoint in question: further investigation is needed before ruling out laboratory leak. Prominent adherent: Tedros. I'm not taking things him of context. (Check the context, please, if you have doubts.) SSSheridan (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the Tedros statement, in context, makes him an adherent of the lab leak hypothesis. At least, that it's a likely explanation. The beginning context doesn't seem to suggest specific issues with this conclusion, only that (like all the conclusions) they can (and should) be strengthened with further info: I welcome your report, which advances our understanding in important ways. It also raises further questions that will need to be addressed by further studies, as the team itself notes in the report. I'd actually argue the opposite, that Tedros was being savvy in criticizing China's lack of openness for being unable to rule out this possibility. Or, to be more specific here, the Tedros comment doesn't change that the natural origin is considered the most likely explanation by the mainstream.

However, there are multiple other prominent adherents who were explicit in their support (both the Science letter and otherwise), so IMO we needn't reference Tedros on this as we have cleaner justification for this being a significant minority view worthy of mention. The 'prominent adherent' comment is specifically regarding this: To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. So we've already cleared that second bar, this is a view that early this year was not considered significant enough ('a tiny minority') to even mention on the article, and now it is. So it's a finer question of how we word it so as not to make it appear more prominent than it is. IMO we mostly do this well, by placing it as the contrarian opinion to the mainstream.

So to sum it up, the best sources continue to say that the lab leak is unlikely and should be phrased as such against the mainstream position that it's 'zoonosis in a natural setting'. The focus should be on how we phrase that contrarian view (ie. is "a few individuals" appropriate weight). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

the certainty with which it has been rejected is quite galling to my old-fashioned Popperian sense of scientific (un)certainty. So, there's two responses to this. One is that our own instincts don't matter, that we only report the sources, followed by an alphabet soup of Wikilawyering. This is probably the correct response, however to answer your actual question with a real response, public health is complicated, orders of magnitude more complicated than just prscticing medicine, which is also incredibly complicated. It is easy for intuition to lead you astray, especially in the absence of important underlying facts (this is why critical thinking alone is insufficient). I can see how some people look at this and wonder why the scientific community has been so insistent that a zoonotic event is the most likely origin, but this is because we have been predicting that this would happen, based on prior events and multiple lines of evidence, for decades. A lab leak, by contrast, really is an extraordinary claim as compared to a bat coronavirus jumping to humans in the wild, via an intermediate mammal, resulting in a deadly outbreak, for the third time in the past 20 years. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not instinct :) I've been reading the papers, and my point was to suggest that Karl Popper would have been saddened by the Conclusions sections I've been reading. I agree that I don't know the complexity of public health, or of medicine -- all I've done is what I, as a bioinformatician, am qualified to do: read the papers, read their Results sections, read their Conclusions sections. I repeat: galling. Of course I know all about overselling one's findings in the conclusion section, but I'm genuinely shocked and disheartened -- I really expected better with a pandemic ongoing. Obviously, this is all my interpretation and Original Research has no role in Wikipedia -- this is just a response from me to you Hyperion35, since you were kind enough to engage and provide, as you say, a "real response."

As for "extraordinary claim": I take it that you have (quite understandably) not read the latest on this -- I too had not, until the WaPo (whose science writers I respect) turned my eye onto it. But it seems I'm not making headway here by citing others (Tedros, Science, WaPo, NYT) who are concerned about this possibility. I suppose that the interpretation of their statements is dependent upon whether one considers the lab-leak hypothesis extraordinary or ordinary. So let me try to make a brief exposition here on why the idea isn't outlandish, or baseless hand-waving, but based on their published research proposals.

Take a look for yourself at the grant proposals in question:2018: "Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice." The key here is that they had predictive models of coronaviruses leaping to humans ("emergence potential"), and, as their next step, they wanted to test their hypothesis with experiment -- any scientist can relate to that. So they say they intended to use reverse genetics to experimentally test these predictions in humanized mice (mice with human respiratory cells). YIKES. Seriously -- Hyperion35, Bakkster Man, RandomCanadian -- if you're willing to give these quotes some minutes of thought, do please let me know if there's some reading of them other than "we would like to test our predictions about coronaviruses leaping to humans by actually creating such viruses," because I find this quite shocking. And the 2019 grant proposal: "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential." (Infectious clone technology "enables manipulation of RNA viruses at the molecular level," i.e. editing their sequence.) Again: testing the hypothesis of spillover potential (to humans) via editing the sequence of the virus's S protein and then testing those viruses in vitro and in vivo. Again, with the glorious benefit of hindsight: holy cow, are you sure you want to do that??? I, like Tedros, would really like a peek at their lab notebooks to see how these experiments went.

If these experiments were conducted, what biosafety level were they done at? Here's the PI, Shi Zhengli, to Science: "The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories". She goes on to explain that their BSL-4 lab was not yet in use for their research. I know Wikipedia is not a place for emotion, but my god -- BSL-2?!?! Surely it's not a fringe opinion to say "I'd like to know, please, whether those coronavirus-spillover experiments were done in BSL-2 or BSL-3." There is not, as far as I can find, an answer to that question available. That's the sort of "further investigation" that has been called for everywhere from Science to WaPo/NYT to www.who.int.

I apologize if my tone is sounding increasingly shrill. It's because I feel I'm going about this the right way and not being heard. Of course I don't want to be here on the Talk page, arguing about the wording of grant proposals -- my opinion is irrelevant anyway! That's why I led with Tedros and Science and the rest, but clearly I'm interpreting their statements as much more relevant/serious/noteworthy than you are. I've come to a point where either:

• This article is misrepresenting the state of knowledge/opinion, or
• I'm one of the crazies.

I don't want this virus to have come out of a lab. I'd rather believe that I'm crazy than believe that. But so far, I'm just not seeing the evidence :D

Is the hypothesis of lab origin still an "extraordinary claim"? I come back to that word because it's relevant to the question of due/undue weight, and I just don't know how else I can make the point that this is no longer a fringe opinion. To recap:

• It is published fact that a lab in Wuhan pursued a project to engineer the S proteins of bat coronaviruses so they would infect humanized mice. (I simply cannot find any other way to read the proposals; again, please do tell me if you have one.)
• Did the project go ahead? The project was funded ca. $500k in 2018 and again in 2019, so, yes.
• What we don't know are the details: how far they got in the project, whether the specific methods they used would indeed produce viruses resembling SARS-CoV-2, etc. These are the questions driving the "calls for further investigation."
• Which biosafety level were these experiments conducted under? According to the PI, either BSL-2 or BSL-3, but not BSL-4. (To quote Wikipedia: "Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) is appropriate for work with agents that could easily be aerosol-transmitted within the laboratory and cause severe to fatal disease in humans for which there are no available vaccines or treatments.") Well, was it BSL-2 or BSL-3? We don't know.

The above is the context which informed the following statements:

• The Letter published by Science: "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data."
• Derek Lowe, sciencemag.org: "I’m going to regret writing about this, but it’s not a topic to be ignored. Where did the current coronavirus come from?" "So it’s all an open question, unfortunately. And I think it’s important for people to realize that it’s an open question, and that we need a lot more hard evidence before anything can be said for certain. People up and down the spectrum of opinion need to realize that this could still go in several different directions."
• The Washington Post Editorial Board: "The laboratory leak theory also deserves more careful scrutiny. This is not to stigmatize Asians or to bash China, nor to embrace the Trump administration’s use of the laboratory leak theory to divert attention from its failures. The reason to investigate is the persistence of unanswered questions about research being carried out at the Wuhan institute.... The research involved testing novel chimeric viruses with different spike proteins, like that on the pandemic coronavirus strain, using “humanized” mice, with cells modified to resemble human respiratory cells." "If the laboratory leak theory is wrong, China could easily clarify the situation by being more open and transparent. Instead, it acts as if there is something to hide."
• Tedros again: "The team also considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy."

I'm not seeking to convince anyone about where the virus came from. I'm only seeking to convince you, fellow editors, that:

1. It is not a fringe opinion to say that "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data" [14], and
2. The current wording in this article is a clear dismissal of that opinion; it does not give it due weight. (The current wording:)

Extended content

"A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, with only circumstantial evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[93][94] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[95][96] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[97][75]"

My proposal for the article remains: to represent that Tedros and the authors of the Science letter (which the Science editors chose to publish) -- not "a few individuals, with only circumstantial evidence" -- are taking the laboratory spillover hypothesis seriously, and that they have called -- seriously, not formulaically -- for further, unobstructed investigation. SSSheridan (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The grant proposal is a WP:PRIMARY source. Any interpretation of it (your questions, etc...) would be improper editorial synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia - see WP:NOR. Yes, scientists conduct gain of function research. There's no evidence that SARS-Cov-2 is the result of such research, and MEDRS sources overwhelmingly reject the theory of an engineered virus. The comments by Tedros et al. are already covered to more detail at Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#World_Health_Organization. Going to such details here would be off-topic, since this isn't about the investigations and controversies related thereto. The current wording correctly states that A) there are conspiracies related to the origin of COVID-19 B) there is an unsubstantiated hypothesis that COVID may have leaked from a lab [sources given at WP:NOLABLEAK say that there is no evidence for it, ergo, we say that too] C) some have called for further investigations and D) the existing research, including the WHO report, does not support this hypothesis. You might have a point that B) and C) could be more clearly separated (as two distinct, but somewhat related ideas), but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my reason for bringing in the primary sources. I began with the secondary sources, but we differed in how we read the same words. Perhaps I locked in too much on the "extraordinary claim" phrasing, but the purpose of quoting the primary sources was to contextualize the secondary sources, as being not merely that requisite minority of scientists who pop up to disagree with any consensus. I grant that that wasn't your criticism in the first place, RandomCanadian, so perhaps I didn't need to burden you with the name check.

To your point. I understand that a Letter is not an Article which is not a Review, and that Wikipedia has a far higher standard than that for definitive biomedical statements. But, WP:MEDRS says: "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." I maintain my position that the current sentence does not fulfill this guideline. SSSheridan (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@SSSheridan: I understand the frustration. It's a difficult (and, more importantly, politically frought) topic, and covering it in asynchronous online text conversation doesn't make it any easier. I definitely don't think you're crazy or a conspiracy theorist. I think there are two areas of this discussion that are helpful to separate.

1. How likely is the lab leak hypothesis?' I don't think it's right to dismiss concerns or impressions on the likelihood of the lab hypothesis, certainly not offhand. While I tend to weight the evidence differently, I think it's a pretty rational conclusion for someone to come to, depending on how they weight the quality of the different sources of information. This is a big reason I've been trying to help get suitable content about the scientific theory onto the appropriate COVID-19 pages. At the start of this year, the consensus was that any discussion of it was purely as a conspiracy theory on the COVID-19 misinformation article. Between the WHO report and other scientists feeling comfortable to speak about it, that has resulted in the change. So that should give you some confidence that things are not set in stone, they just need to go about changing in the right way. Which brings me to...

2. What's the consensus on how we maintain the article? This is a pretty common stumbling block. The issue being, even if you convince me the lab leak is the most reasonable and likely explanation, that's insufficient to put it in the article. One of the most relevant is WP:V: Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. I suspect this may be the disconnect we're having in the above discussion. The more directly related policy is WP:FRINGE, regarding how we deal with non-mainstream topics. Particularly WP:FRINGELEVEL: Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future. At the moment the lab leak theory, as best we can source (WP:V), is the minority view. So for now, we take the view that the information we present must be framed relative to the mainstream view, and kept to a level that doesn't imply WP:UNDUE weight by being more wordy than the explanation of the mainstream. And, if and when we can verify that it's no longer the minority view, we will change how we write about it (just as we began to as the WHO report was published).

I hope that helps explain things, and I hope it encourages you to keep participating in improvement. I think it's quite likely that the current wording with "A few individuals" needs refinement to be both less dismissive and more accurately describe the breadth of opinions regarding 'more investigation needed'. I think we just need to all make sure we're talking the same language of writing for the encyclopedia and meeting policy, so there's one less stumbling block in the way. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:Cheers for the understanding reply. I basically agree with your later paragraphs, though I fear from your earlier paragraphs that I still came across as pushing the lab leak hypothesis.

1. While I tend to weight the evidence differently, I think it's a pretty rational conclusion for someone to come to: I (and my inner Popper) am a bit embarrassed that I gave the impression of having "concluded" anything. I have no idea! And I'm not just saying "I have no idea" to try to sound moderate. My only opinion here is that the lab leak hypothesis is not whacky, is a significant minority opinion backed by non-fringe sources, and that the current wording still frames it as though it is a conspiracy theory of ill repute. ​
2. Even if you convince me the lab leak is the most reasonable and likely explanation, that's insufficient to put it in the article. But I wasn't trying to convince anyone. I realize that the name check, asking about the interpretation of primary sources, was misleading. I wrote the name check in a peak of self-doubt: the simplest explanation for the disparity between what I was reading and how it was being discussed here was, simply, that I was badly misunderstanding things. The name check was a genuine invitation to set me right.

But, above and below the primary sources, I hope I made clear that they were included to bring a fellow editor up to date on why lab leak is not an "extraordinary claim." I concede that the asynchronous nature of the conversation caught me here, and I may have hammered that point harder than needed.

The tl;dr of the primary-source invocation is to add context, to justify the Tedros quote as an actual expression of dissatisfaction, not a formulaic/routine call for "further investigation is needed," and to likewise counter the dismissal of the other secondary sources as the obligatory fringe of disagreeing scientists.

The sources do not, of course, support representing the lab leak hypothesis as a mainstream explanation. My argument -- newly armed with the WP:MEDSCI policy -- is that that it is a "significant minority opinion" as discussed in WP:MEDSCI, which says "such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." In line with your point about first establishing a common language: should we first settle whether WP:MEDSCI is the relevant policy for this topic? Perhaps we should agree on that, then I can relaunch the discussion with a more cleanly delineated proposal. (This section originated as just an offer of candidate citations.)SSSheridan (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In case you're wondering what's driving me so hard, if not conviction, it's this: if the lab leak hypothesis is true --if the pandemic of the century was constructed by scientists -- then (among much else), there will be a severe crisis of public trust in science, which would (probably) be a Very Bad Thing. Think of the ammunition for the next century's worth of conspiracy theorists. SSSheridan (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: this comment was published prematurely; see below.

WP:RGW is not something to be tried; stick to the most reputable sources and Wikipedia(ns) will have clean hands, as we are meant only to be a reflection of published accepted knowledge. By the logic some editors are showing here they'd have been arguing during the MMR/Autism scare that since a lot of (reputable) newspapers were raising the alarm, maybe there was something in it. (And ironically, that is part of the reason why MEDRS evolved as it did.) Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, the above was published by the mobile interface prematurely. That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

My purpose was this: despite repeatedly saying I don't favor the lab leak hypothesis, everyone's still assuming that's what I'm here for. And that probably makes sense as a heuristic, because most people who kick up a huge fuss are pushing a perspective.

I raised that hypothetical about the crisis of trust just to explain myself, explain why I've come storming into this Talk page with such wordiness despite claiming not to have a favored hypothesis. As I suggested above: depending on what turns out to be true, it would be either "nice" or "really important" for Wikipedia to get this one right -- by which I mean, to be encyclopedic, fair, to accurately reflect the state of knowledge. To follow WP:MEDRS.

WP:MEDRS/WP:MEDSCI has an explicit place for minority opinions. You say "stick to the most reputable sources," but a minority view will by definition be represented in the literature with lower prominence. So Wikipedia reflects that: it should not report minority opinions except, if appropriate, a short mention of the minority opinion and the debate.

I'm saying that in this article, the short mention of the minority opinion is NPOV and misrepresents the state of the literature. As an illustration: if you had only read this article's take on the debate, then you would be surprised to learn that the WHO Director-General had responded to the WHO report by saying it had insufficient evidence for a robust conclusion.

Again. My claim is that I'm not here because I believe the lab leak hypothesis, but because I believe this article treats it inaccurately. WP:MEDRS is the law of the land, I like it, and I want to bring this article into compliance. So let's just hammer out a consensus on how to do that? SSSheridan (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My idea is that I'll start a new section/thread, and say "here's the current wording; I think that the representation of the minority opinion should be improved according to WP:MEDSCI; do you agree?", and if there is agreement, we can discuss further. Is that the right way to go about it? SSSheridan (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything based on the highest-quality sources is fine. But we mustn't WP:GEVAL to fringe ideas (cornanvirus lab leak), or extreme fringe conspiracy theories (bioengineered! weapon! etc!) Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@SSSheridan: I think we're in pretty strong agreement, which is why I wanted to step back to help avoid any misunderstandings. I think the only remaining clarification from my side is regarding WP:FRINGE. The common misconception with FRINGE seems to be that it implies conspiracy or pseudoscience. However, the guideline is clear that it also includes "alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community", which is where I currently categorize the lab leak hypothesis. This is basically my one critique of the FRINGE policy, that there's no way to more clearly reference alternative theories, without an unintended implication that it's less valid than it is. With luck the WP:FRINGE/ALT redirect I just made will be accepted, so we can point to it more clearly without the pseudoscientific presumption.

But to be clear I agree, the section could use improved wording, and a fresh section would help. The guiding principles should be WP:MEDSCI, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGELEVEL, which say roughly the same thing. The trick is just 1. agreeing on the appropriate weight/acceptance level among the scientific community 2. stating this clearly without over- or under-valuing. Both unfortunately easier said than done, but worth our effort to improve. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I see - I was using "fringe" in the conventional sense, unaware that it's more broadly defined on Wikipedia. I definitely agree that a "rebranding" could be beneficial. As for this article. Given your greater experience (and greater esteem round these parts), perhaps you should start a new discussion. I'd imagine that everyone round here is tired of endless discussions (apologies for my hefty contribution to that); perhaps a clearly delineated framing of the question(s) can better contain the discussion. SSSheridan (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Informal hatting: as I began the above discussion without enough knowledge of the relevant policies, the discussion grew too long and complicated to be of much use. Please join the better-structured discussion over at WikiProject COVID-19. SSSheridan (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Shi Zhengli, biosafety at the WIV, and conspiracy

At Shi Zhengli, IPs and editors are inserting [15][16] the comment that Zhi Zhengli "admitted" that coronavirus research at the WIV had been conducted in BSL-2 labs during an interview with Science Magazine. The implication is that poor safety by Shi or the WIV may have caused the outbreak. This inserted text is taken from a new article [17] written in the The Washington Post that uses almost identical language:

In the interview, she admitted that some coronavirus research was conducted at biosafety level 2, not the more restrictive BSL-4.

However, if you go to the original Science Magazine interview [18] including the extended interview from which the Washington Post quotes [19], you can see that what Shi (and Science Magazine) say is quite different: far from "admitting" that the WIV uses BSL-2 labs, Shi explains why her group now uses BSL-4 labs for their work:

Q: Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs--and indeed, you WIV didn't even have an operational BSL-4 until recently--why would you do any coronavirus experiments under BSL-4 conditions?

A: The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.

After the BSL-4 laboratory in our institute has been put into operation, in accordance with the management regulations of BSL-4 laboratory, we have trained the scientific researchers in the BSL-4 laboratory using the low-pathogenic coronaviruses as model viruses, which aims to prepare for conducting the experimental activities of highly pathogenic microorganisms.

After the COVID-19 outbreak, our country has stipulated that the cultivation and the animal infection experiments of SARS-CoV-2 should be carried out in BSL-3 laboratory or above. Since the BSL-3 laboratories in our institute do not have the hardware conditions to conduct experiments on non-human primates, and in order to carry out the mentioned research, our institute had applied to the governmental authorities and obtained the qualification to conduct experiments on SARS-CoV-2 for Wuhan P4 laboratory, in which the rhesus monkey animal model, etc. have been carried out.

I've tried to make this clear in this edit [20], but I want to make sure I'm getting this right. It seems that Shi's group used to use BSL-2 and BSL-3 like everyone else, but since the pandemic, as of July 31 at least, her group was now using BSL-4 for some coronavirus research because of new regulations drafted by the Chinese government, after the start of the pandemic. Am I reading this correctly? -Darouet (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You're correct that "admitted" is loaded language, and that she said "BSL-2 and BSL-3", so it's anyone's guess which research was done in which. It is the correct reading that they were only doing training in the BSL-4 lab before the pandemic. I'm inclined to agree with your reading that they've been doing monkey experiments in BSL-4 subsequently, but I'm not sure why it says "P4" there. SSSheridan (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and this is a side-point, but my opinion is that it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories". There are "secret bioweapon research" theories, and then there are "well intentioned research had an oopsie," which I've been recently convinced is actually quite plausible. I don't support that hypothesis, per se -- I agree with Tedros and the Science letter that both origins remain open possibilities, and I agree with the other editors that the current state of the literature strongly favors zoonosis. Here's why I bring it up: 1) I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, and 2) I think that labeling it as such unnecessarily antagonizes people with legitimate concerns. This pandemic has hurt a lot of people, so it's more than your average conspiracy junkie who's going to feel troubled about this. SSSheridan (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories"} ← and this is happening where? Alexbrn (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Respectfully: Is this a sincere question or are you being facetious? Until very recently, suggesting on Wikipedia that the lab leak hypothesis should be characterized as anything but a baseless conspiracy theory was met with repudiation bordering on ridicule. This dismissiveness was not reserved only for those who alleged more extreme views (like claiming SARS-CoV-2 is conclusively a bioweapon); rather, even those who said that a lab leak is one plausible explanation—and that it should be portrayed as such on Wikipedia—were derided or ignored. The discussion of COVID-19 origins on Wikipedia has been tainted by partisan politics and tribal sentimentalities since day one.2600:1700:FE20:2390:44C8:7275:8F8D:CEAB (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No evidence presented, of course. It's true the discussions have been "tainted by partisan politics and tribal sentimentalities since day one", but I think Wikipedia has done a good job of sticking to the sources and holding the line, thanks to the work of good editors. A hearty pat on the back is merited. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: No evidence presented for what exactly? Are you suggesting you need to see evidence in order to be convinced that the lab leak hypothesis was widely dismissed on Wikipedia? If that is truly what you meant, then please let me know, and I'll use the Wayback Machine to pull up old Talk pages on the COVID-19 misinformation wiki. By the way: I'm not contending that you, or any other editor, has ever possessed any bad intentions—not at all. With that said, a little bit of reflection regarding "how could we perhaps have done slightly better?" would be a welcomed sight (as opposed to hearty self-patting on the collective back). 2600:1700:FE20:2390:44C8:7275:8F8D:CEAB (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If you're in agreement that this perspective is no longer the case on Wikipedia, then for the most part we can't go back and change the past. We can only fix it now if someone or somewhere is currently "labeling all lab-leak scenarios as conspiracy theories" (and we're trying to do better in making these distinctions where they're tricky now). And that was the question, where is it happening now?

While there's probably room for refinement with retrospection, I'd suggest most of the editorial views came from two areas: 1) reflections of the scientific community which had given a full-throated dismissal of lab-related theorizing 2) the prevalence of actual unscientific conspiracy theories mis-citing research. Those two seemed to feed off each other (still do to an extent), leading to the reaction by mainstream science of not even taking the possibility seriously, lest it fuel conspiracies. Assuming you agree that the scientific community (or at least, scholarly peer-reviewed sources on the topic) had broadly categorized the topic as such, then WP:FRINGELEVEL mostly tied our hands that we should treat it similarly. We had to wait until we could verify prevailing opinion was no longer that this was conspiratorial thought, since we lack a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

I suspect you'll find that this kind of comment makes people bristle (especially from an anonymous IP editor, consider creating an account) because the people you're talking to have put in the hard work of following that changing consensus. Incredibly difficult and frustrating, not because of those with reasonable perspectives on furin cleavage sites and stuff, but because the page was frequently full of whackos and those taking pot shots. So coming in now and criticizing the past, instead of looking to improve things going forward, is not going to be viewed in a friendly light. Don't WP:BLUDGEON, what's done is done. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Title of the section. "Conspiracy" doesn't seem to relate to anything.SSSheridan (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• So, this is an excellent example for why so many of us keep insisting that MEDPOP sources are a problem. The Washington Post article clearly screwed this up. The Science interview lacks sufficient specificity such that we have to guess as to what is being said. Do you see how this creates problems? In my reading, it sounds as though they used BSL 2 and 3 when dealing with either viruses or proteins that were not known to be capable of infecting humans. It is unclear from the interview whether they began using BSL 4 protocols before or after the pandemic began. When they first completed the BSL 4 upgrade, they used model viruses to practice BSL 4 protocols, viruses that would not normally require BSL 4.

  Also, it sounds from the article interview as though SARS-COV-2 still only requires BSL 3 even after the pandemic, which would imply that the lab has always had sufficient (BSL 3) protocols for handling this virus.

  But you see the problems here, right? Even this much requires us to interpret and synthesize from this interview, and that's not appropriate. This is exactly why some of us have repeatedly insisted on the MEDRS standard so that we can avoid these situations where we either quote from a newspaper source that clearly misrepresented an interview, or we try to interpret an ambiguous response to an interview question ourselves. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree on the loaded language, along with the conclusions being a stretch. I suspect there may be a need for further clarification before we can make conclusions. Most importantly: which research was performed at BSL-2? Per the CDC regarding SARS-CoV-2 "Routine diagnostic testing procedures, such as the following activities, can be handled in a BSL-2 laboratory using Standard Precautions."[21] Even some procedures with SARS virus can be performed in BSL-2 in the US.[22] Without more information on which activities were performed on which viruses at which level, we can't assume anything untoward or reckless happened, and until then it's not really notable (because it gives undue weight to that 'something was done wrong' presumption). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

How does a response to an interview question that begins "Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs" become an admission? Yikes. I think that goes beyond "loaded" language into outright distortion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

An excellent example of why we have WP:MEDPOP. For the record, I think the rewrite by @Darouet: was well done to place it in context. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Darouet's edit looks pretty good to me. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)