Talk:COVID-19

"Diarrhea or upper respiratory symptoms are less frequent"

Signs and symptoms: "Diarrhea or upper respiratory symptoms (e.g. sneezing, runny nose, sore throat) are less frequent."

Main outbreak topic: "Unlike other coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, COVID-19 patients may also develop gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea." (citation)

Based on the latest NEJM report, it looks like many of these don't support a COVID-19 diagnosis. From the list, only sore throat registered at a significant 13.9%.

The way I read it, nasal congestion (4.8%), nausea or vomiting (5%), and diarrhea (3.8%) seem to be in line with the general population and thus more likely to indicate an infection is not COVID-19.

The paragraph that includes all percentages is great. I'm just concerned about WP:SYNTH in the presentation of "less frequent" and rare symptoms.

- Wikmoz (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102433 would seem useful here to avoid any SYNTH. Let's follow what that says. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read the citation but can't make sense of it. The authors point to these studes for MERS and SARS, which had diarrhea incidence rates of 26% and 20-25% respectively. I have to be missing something. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, the self reported frequency of diarrhea in China is <1% so I guess there's a 2.8% spike among COVID-19 patients (or at least patients in high stress situations). Leaving the statement in this topic as is accordingly. The "Unlike other coronaviruses..." statement is incorrect though so I replaced it with the raw WHO symptom frequency data, which includes diarrhea. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation)

As per earlier talk, I've created a draft disambiguation page. Please check & edit

What happens next? Robertpedley (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to have several venues for this discussion. Please decide where it should be and direct editors there.Graham Beards (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Graham Beards please refer to discussion here Talk:Coronavirus#Draft:Coronavirus_(Disambiguation) Robertpedley (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"The disease is the cause of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak"

Is this the right wording? I would say that the cause of the outbreak is the virus (SARS-CoV-2), and that the outbreak is the spreading of the disease. I suppose in one sense the characteristics of the disease (infectiousness) are causing the outbreak, but seeing as the outbreak is also "causing" instances of the disease, it still feels like a weird tautology. Would you say "the disease influenza is the cause of flu outbreaks"? Perhaps, but maybe "[Covid-19] is the disease which was spread in the 2019 coronavirus outbreak" would be better? 81.106.108.123 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh whoops, looks like somebody was already talking about this up the page. Still, maybe that makes more of a case for different wording. 81.106.108.123 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

We should be very careful when using the word "cause". It needs strong RS to support it. Cinadon36 07:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC concerning COVID-19 navbox

I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. See Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace to participate.  Bait30  ^Talk? 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Order of sections

Not sure if this fits in with the Wikipedia style book but I'd suggest moving the Prognosis section much further up the page. Given the hysteria that seems to be developing - the clearly stated prognosis of a fatality rate of around 2% (of which at least some, maybe the majority, are in relatively high risk groups) would be a useful counter to the "France has started rationing face masks" type of headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.243.239 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

per MEDMOSWikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles the answer is no--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Origin

Please add section

Origin As per published report from WHO it is a zoonotic virus and probably originated from bats but intermediate carriers are not detected. This can lead to catastrophic disaster if the same group of bat can expand across different geographies. DBigFacts (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The first part of your statement might be appropriate for the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article, but the second part contains editorial language and is not appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Fibrosis

I've seen several sources claiming that COVID-19 can cause long-term/permanent damage even in survivors, including fibrosis. Anyone want to add this? 72.209.60.95 (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an important point, but the key is: what sources? We can consider adding them if you show us. Dekimasuよ! 04:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is one source:

"Autopsies show severe damage to COVID-19 patients' lungs and immune system, according to a doctor in Wuhan reached by the Global Times, who called for measures to prevent fibrosis of the lungs at an early stage of the disease. [...]

"The autopsy results Liu shared inspired me a lot. Based on the results, I think the most important thing now is to take measures at an early stage of the disease to protect patients' lungs from irreversible fibrosis," Peng noted. [...]

The patient, an 85-year-old man, exhibited similar pathological changes to those caused by SARS and MERS. Fibrosis in his lungs was not as serious as was seen in SARS patients, but an exudative reaction was more apparent, possibly due to the short course of his disease."

72.209.60.95 (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Antibody testing

There's a reference to yicaiglobal which on Feb 25th stated that "China is producing [...] 350,000 antibody test kits each day" But 2 days later we have sciencemag.org saying "In what appears to be a first, disease trackers in Singapore have used an experimental antibody test for COVID-19 to confirm that a suspected patient was infected with the coronavirus. [...] Researchers around the world are racing to develop antibody tests,".

Either there was a huge miss of information from China to Singapore & others or the yicaiglobal article is wrong. Wrong either in that they misreported the officials or the officials said something which was not a reflection of reality.

Bearing WP:MEDRS in mind I'm not sure what we should do. Just remove the reference, or qualify it? --TFJamMan (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot more info about antibody testing! China ships it already to the EU, produces it, but noone tells it in the EU press. I don't know why, especially because this is good news: "Xiamen University has developed rapid testing kit for the COVID-19 antibody with results available in 29 minutes. The testing kit has been approved by the EU and exported to countries including Italy, Austria and the Netherlands." source: Shine.cn --Horia mar (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

JAMA tagged as "better source needed"?

Curious to see JAMA (cited as reference 125 under the heading Research/Antiviral) tagged as "better source needed". Is this perhaps an accidental tagging? Wayne 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

if per MEDRS there's a better source, then....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Prognosis

I deleted a paragraph [1]. It seems to me that there were numerous issue: "According to WHO, based on analysis of 44,000 cases": I think it is not WHO but a Chinese organization "The Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team" [2]. "and 3.7% of cases are fatal": It also seems wrong. The article says "overall case fatality rate of 2.3%". There is only one "3.7" number in the article and that is not the correct "overall case fatality rate". Why do such an errors appear in a prominent article? Or am I misunderstanding something? — fnielsen (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we definitely need the number in the article. Is the "overall case fatality rate of 2.3%" of [3] the most appropriate? Are there updates? — fnielsen (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"No deaths had occurred under the age of 10 as of 26 February 2020" is based solely on data (or lack thereof) from China's CDC. It may be premature to assume that no deaths under age 10 have occurred. It looks more like China just chose not to report any numbers in that age range. Numerous articles have raised suspicion over the accuracy of China's reporting, many suggesting that underreporting of COVID-19 in China is politically motivated, perhaps to deflect criticism of their handling of the outbreak and deficiencies in their healthcare system infrastructure, and/or to convince their own citizens to return to work. One obviously glaring statistic that casts suspicion on China's COVID-19 reporting is the large discrepancy in the reported death rate in China vs. the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.219.121 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Areas

Which areas are mostlty affected Yash Sharma qwe123 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

please see 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak for areas(countries affected), however if your referring to what areas of the body please see signs and symptoms in this article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

Change "outbreak was first idenhttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/tified on 31 December 2019" to "outbreak was first identified on 1 December 2019" Grishkin (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done DarthFlappy (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Immunity anyone?

From an epidemiological and predictive point of view, it is essential to know whether past patients can be re-infected. What do we know about that? There is nothing in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic Y Bois (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

please see antibody testing chapter, here above! :) --Horia mar (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence Efforts ?

It would be great to cover and date stamp some of the AI efforts / claims reported by the Wall Street Journal today: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/biotech-companies-tap-ai-to-speed-path-to-coronavirus-treatments-11583451564 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.105.170 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Research centers

Duke-NUS along with Arcturus is also working on a vaccine

https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/26/15542/arcturus-duke-nus-to-develop-covid-19-vaccine-for-singapore.html

104.128.175.161 (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

should be in vaccine article Coronavirus vaccine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

v2.0 : draft in progress, help welcolme

I searched dozens of papers for key characteristics of the COVID19. I need help for SARS, MERS. Seasonal flu is just for personal reference and is expected to be removed soon. If you have info for a cell, contribution welcome. Yug (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Characteristics of patients who have been infected with
SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV ()

Virus	SARS-CoV-2	MERS-CoV	SARS-CoV	H1N1, H3N2
Disease	COVID-19	Middle East respiratory syndrome	Severe acute respiratory syndrome	Seasonal flu
Epidemiology
Detection date	December 2019	June 2012	November 2002	Endemic (n.a.)
Detection place	Wuhan, China	Jeddah, Saudi Arabia	Guangdong, China	Endemic (n.a.)
Confirmed cases	88,585	2494	8096	5~15,000,000/y
Case fatality rate	3,043 (3.44%)	858 (37%)	744 (10%)	290-650,000 (0.1%)
Basic reproduction number	2.2 (95% CI:1.4–3.9) 2.68 (95% CI:2.47–2.86)			1.3
Serial interval period	7.5±3.4 days (95% CI:5.3–19)
Demographic
Age average	49	56	39.9
Age range	21–76	14–94	1–91
Male:female ratio	2.7:1	3.3:1	1:1.25
Health-care workers	16	9.8%	23.1%
Symptoms
Fever	40 (98%)	98%	99–100%
Dry cough	31 (76%)	47%	29–75%
Dyspnea/short breath	22 (55%)	72%	40–42%
Diarrhea	1 (3%)	26%	20–25%
Sore throat	0	21%	13–25%
Ventilatory support	9.8%	80%	14–20%
Prognostic/Evolution
Incubation	5.5 days (1–14) or 5.2 days (95% CI:4.1–7.0)			2-4 days
Onset	Day 0			Day 0
First medical visit	+4.6 days (95% CI:4.1–5.1)
Hospital admission	+7.0 days (4.0–8.0) or +12.5 days (95% CI:10.3–14.8) +9.1 days (95% CI:8.6–9.7)
Dyspnea/short breath	+8.0 days (5.0–13.0)
ARDS	+9.0 days (8.0–14.0)
Mechanical ventilation / ICU	+10.5 days (7.0–14.0)
Recovery	+22.2 days (95% CI:18–83)
Dead	+14 days (6–41) or hospitalization + 12.4 +22.3 days (95% CI:18–82)
Notes

Yug (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf This is a good source (Angunnu (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC))

https://www.who.int/csr/don/24-february-2020-mers-saudi-arabia/en/ For MERS (Angunnu (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC))

Interesting but wouldn't it violate WP:SYNTHESIS? Cinadon36 15:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no abusive conclusion, just informative data. Yug (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your case fatality rate looks like WP:OR. We should be citing what the literature reports on this, not trying to calculate the number directly from data we have available. Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations Yug (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I think such numbers can be included on the page, at least for the coronavirus disease, but they all must be sourced. For example, where the basic reproduction number for the seasonal flu came from? My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Case fatality is not a routine calculation. We have discussed this numerous times and repeatedly come to that conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

One simply needs a better source for ref [b]. This is 3.4% according to WHO [4], and this number is widely cited here and elsewhere. This is key number, and it absolutely must be included, even in the lead. Right now it only appears on the page in connection with false statements by Trump. Must be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The article should definitely talk about mortality rates, but it should do so based on numbers given in WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I'am quite tired of the petty "CFR is not routine calculation". Per wikipedia :

"Case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk or case fatality ratio — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a certain period of time."

So yes, CFR is Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations. Then, interpretation need to be an informed reader about its limitations. The stage of the epidemic matters, the date, the undetected / detected ratio matters for a better understanding. This shouldn't encourage to censor the CFR routine calculation. It either fall on the reader to instruct her/himself by clicking on Case fatality rate and reading it, or to us to add ref notes duplicating the Case fatality rate article's content. But pretending we cannot do a routine division is surprisingly petty, while it also force-hand us to fall back upon outdated and therefor less relevant external sources, degrading the quality of the information we provide. Yug (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed multiple times now on the main article's Talk page and the consensus is that this is not a routine calculation. It is not "petty" to respect an expressed consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I made the following change in the article: Added to the intro "...or SARS-1)" and "...or SARS-CoV-1)", as alternate names being used in the year 2020. Acwilson9 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Community transmission UK

The UK now has two confirmed cahttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/ses of community transmission, one a woman in her 70s and the other a man in his 80s, both had underlying conditions and both have since died.

BBC News - Coronavirus: Man in 80s is second person to die of virus in UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51771815 Margo (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

this should be at 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation overkill

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/ "the world could independently develop polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect infection by the virus.[13][55][56][57][58][59][60]" Is there any particular reason for so many refs? If I recall correctly, I removed some of them, but they have been re-inserted somehow. Cinadon36 15:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

tagged it[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know we had such a template. Cinadon36 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/

Coronavirus vaccine

I have created Coronavirus vaccine, as this will inevitably be needed to line up with our existing articles about developed and experimental vaccines. BD2412 T 18:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

shouldn't it be called Coronavirus vaccine research(as the title may mislead readers to think there already is a vaccine approved/tested/available...Ebola for example, didn't get a vaccine approved and that worked until recently, and even now it only works on Zaire ebolavirus)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing that matterhttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/ at Talk:COVID-19 vaccine. Input welcome there. Bondegezou (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

missing antiviral

where are oseltamivir and peramivir etc ?? in trial treatments section ~ av8dok

Do you have sources discussing these? Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A minor but annoying typo

Whoever has edit permissions, please correct:

The CDC recommends that healthcare providers first gown, then put on a mask or respirator. This is >>>THAN<<< followed by goggles or a face shield, and finally gloves that cover the wrists of the isolation gown.[81] MreeBiPolar (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Putting on PPE

User:Dekimasu Putting on PPE definitely part of the management of someone with COVID19. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

yes, agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything about it that is different from how protective gear would be put on when dealing with other infectious diseases? If not, then I think the step-by-step description is wandering into WP:NOTHOWTO. A simple statement that protective gear is used would suffice, without the graphic. For example, we mention intubation, but we don't have a description here of how intubation works. Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I really see no reason for having that image on this page specifically. The description makes sense, but a visual image for such a small section specifically for medially professionals putting on protective gear, seems unneeded to me. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:03, 10 March, 2020

Sequelae

Should we have a section on the consequences of recovering from COVID-19, separate from complications? Many voices claim "it's just a bad flu", others state that consequences arehttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/ unknown, while a minority claim permanent lung or brain damage can result from the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Consequences are part of the prognosis.Cinadon36 09:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Any reasonable explanation for this. Most of that passage doehttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/sn't cite medical sources anyway. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for opening a discussion. Here is my view:

• "Most of that passage doesn't cite medical sources"--> this is not an argument for inclusion, rather it is an argument for exclusion of the rest of the passage.
• Industry announcement that they will work on vaccine, or are currently working, is kind of advertisment. When they present a vaccine and it is validated by third parties, then we can add info on the article.
• It is not best practice to duplicate text from other articles.[6]
• In my opinion, this edit[7] should be reverted per WP:BRD.Cinadon36 11:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that opens the question why only this statement was removed, while the rest was not. I wouldn't call this an industry announcement, the company is based in the national technology park (Sofia Tech Park). The company itself has not issued any statements. Furthermore STP is a govhttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/ernment structure, not a pharmaceutical industry organisation, and its announcement states that they will support further efforts, both financially and through their R&D infrastructure. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia to report every piece of vaccine research activity. We should stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and take a 'helicopter view' rather than getting lost in the details. So, I would be happy to see lots of this sort of material removed. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Gilead and Ascletis are not testing vaccines

Read the source references! They are testing antivirals.