Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 121: Line 121:
In the section titled ''Earlier estimates of IFR'', the first sentence is:
In the section titled ''Earlier estimates of IFR'', the first sentence is:
{{Blockquote|text=At an early stage of the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported estimates of IFR between 0.3% and 1%.}}
{{Blockquote|text=At an early stage of the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported estimates of IFR between 0.3% and 1%.}}
This range (0.3% - 1%) is what is stated in the first reference [[https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf WHO Situation Report – 30]], however there was a correction the next day in the second reference [[https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200220-sitrep-31-covid-19.pdf WHO Situation Report – 31]] where they replace the lower bound:
This range (0.3% - 1%) is what is stated in the first reference ([https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200219-sitrep-30-covid-19.pdf WHO Situation Report – 30]), however there was a correction the next day in the second reference ([https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200220-sitrep-31-covid-19.pdf WHO Situation Report – 31]) where they replace the lower bound:
{{Blockquote|text=Since the publication of modeling estimates in yesterday’s ‘Subject in Focus’, one research group (Ref. 12) has provided a correction of their estimate of the Infection-Fatality Ratio (IFR), with the new estimate being 0.94% (95% confidence interval 0.37-2.9). This replaces the lowest estimate of IFR of 0.33%, but remains below the highest estimate of 1.0% (Ref. 11).}}
{{Blockquote|text=Since the publication of modeling estimates in yesterday’s ‘Subject in Focus’, one research group (Ref. 12) has provided a correction of their estimate of the Infection-Fatality Ratio (IFR), with the new estimate being 0.94% (95% confidence interval 0.37-2.9). This replaces the lowest estimate of IFR of 0.33%, but remains below the highest estimate of 1.0% (Ref. 11).}}
So the range the WHO reported by the end of february 2020 was actually about 0.5% - 1%, if I read the papers that the WHO references correctly. --[[Special:Contributions/78.82.228.158|78.82.228.158]] ([[User talk:78.82.228.158|talk]]) 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
So the range the WHO reported by the end of february 2020 was actually about 0.5% - 1%, if I read the papers that the WHO references correctly. --[[Special:Contributions/78.82.228.158|78.82.228.158]] ([[User talk:78.82.228.158|talk]]) 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:59, 30 June 2021

    Template:Vital article

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 12 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kris7535 (article contribs).

    Possible infections among WIV researchers in November 2019

    This article, published on June 3, 2021, says the following:

    Three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, all connected with gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, had fallen ill in November 2019 and appeared to have visited the hospital with symptoms similar to COVID-19...
    While it is not clear what had sickened them, “these were not the janitors,” said the former State Department official. “They were active researchers. The dates were among the absolute most arresting part of the picture, because they are smack where they would be if this was the origin.” The reaction inside the State Department was, “Holy shit,” one former senior official recalled. “We should probably tell our bosses.” The investigation roared back to life.

    Should information about this be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No. This is not disease-specific, but is probably being discussed at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

    At the end of the first paragraph of the Pathophysiology section, please add "An envelope protein on COVID-19, as well as providing integrity to the virus, disrupts integrity of the cell-junction proteins in human lung tissue, triggering inflammation and creating opportunities for the virus to enter the blood via the damaged lung tissue." (Or, feel free to workshop this a bit if you want.)

    Source: Owens, Brian (June 8, 2021). "How the Coronavirus Attacks the Lungs -- and How We May Be Able to Stop the Damage". Inside Science. Retrieved June 9, 2021. (this source also links to the Nature Communications paper) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Note: The paper in question, referenced in the above source: [1], and its peer review comments: [2]  A S U K I T E  23:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

    The article currently says The virus can cause acute myocardial injury and chronic damage to the cardiovascular system. An acute cardiac injury was found in 12% of infected people admitted to the hospital in Wuhan, China, and is more frequent in severe disease. It focus too much on acute injury, and has no information on non-acute cardiac injury. I prefer this wording SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to cardiac injury and dysfunction in 20%–30% of hospitalized patients (Guo et al., 2020) and higher rates of mortality in patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (Shi et al., 2020; Wu and McGoogan, 2020).. The quote is from this source.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forich (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 June 2021

    References

    1. ^ Mills, Richard J.; Humphrey, Sean J.; Fortuna, Patrick R.J.; Lor, Mary; Foster, Simon R.; Quaife-Ryan, Gregory A.; Johnston, Rebecca L.; Dumenil, Troy; Bishop, Cameron; Rudraraju, Rajeev; Rawle, Daniel J.; Le, Thuy; Zhao, Wei; Lee, Leo; Mackenzie-Kludas, Charley; Mehdiabadi, Neda R.; Halliday, Christopher; Gilham, Dean; Fu, Li; Nicholls, Stephen J.; Johansson, Jan; Sweeney, Michael; Wong, Norman C.W.; Kulikowski, Ewelina; Sokolowski, Kamil A.; Tse, Brian W.C.; Devilée, Lynn; Voges, Holly K.; Reynolds, Liam T.; Krumeich, Sophie; Mathieson, Ellen; Abu-Bonsrah, Dad; Karavendzas, Kathy; Griffen, Brendan; Titmarsh, Drew; Elliott, David A.; McMahon, James; Suhrbier, Andreas; Subbarao, Kanta; Porrello, Enzo R.; Smyth, Mark J.; Engwerda, Christian R.; MacDonald, Kelli P.A.; Bald, Tobias; James, David E.; Hudson, James E. (April 2021). "BET inhibition blocks inflammation-induced cardiac dysfunction and SARS-CoV-2 infection". Cell. 184 (8): 2167–2182.e22. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.026.

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

    Please change the word infectious to contagious 2A00:23C6:748F:2F00:E135:3EFF:DBC:506F (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The word "infectious" appears 25 times in the article; please specify the sentence where you want it changed. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request

    Can someone please update the upper end of the duration (which currently says 10+ months) to 14 months known? A recently published article can be used as a source. I don't have the requisite number of edits to make this change myself (which is ironic, because this would be an edit of mine…quite the catch 22)

    theZcuber (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TheZcuber, we'd probably need a WP:MEDRS citation for this. Maybe something from this PubMed search query would help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that there's currently no reference whatsoever, how would a news article from an otherwise reputable source not be an improvement? It's not like the claim is in dispute. theZcuber (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WHO nomenclature for variants - Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta

    Could someone edit the variants section and add information of WHO nomenclature of variants? The source from the WHO website is here - https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulKareem92 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier estimates of IFR

    In the section titled Earlier estimates of IFR, the first sentence is:

    At an early stage of the pandemic, the World Health Organization reported estimates of IFR between 0.3% and 1%.

    This range (0.3% - 1%) is what is stated in the first reference (WHO Situation Report – 30), however there was a correction the next day in the second reference (WHO Situation Report – 31) where they replace the lower bound:

    Since the publication of modeling estimates in yesterday’s ‘Subject in Focus’, one research group (Ref. 12) has provided a correction of their estimate of the Infection-Fatality Ratio (IFR), with the new estimate being 0.94% (95% confidence interval 0.37-2.9). This replaces the lowest estimate of IFR of 0.33%, but remains below the highest estimate of 1.0% (Ref. 11).

    So the range the WHO reported by the end of february 2020 was actually about 0.5% - 1%, if I read the papers that the WHO references correctly. --78.82.228.158 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19&oldid=1031309294"