Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Highlighted open discussions

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:SARS-CoV-2#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. (April 2020)

unsubstantiated factoid about virus particle diameter

I don't seem to be able to edit, so am commenting here: The section Virology / Structure gives a diameter of the particles as 50-200 nm, and cites a reference. However, that reference just says they viruss "envelop" particles of that size range (which doesn't even make sense) and then cites a single reference for that, which doesn't support that in any way. So my suggestion would be to either remove the diameter range or else find a reference to support it. I'm looking but haven't found one yet. Thanks! Joe Betts-LaCroix (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added a reference from somewhere else on the page and changed the bounds of the size. SpinningCeres (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Typo in total virus mass range

In section Virology/Structure a total virus mass of 0.1-1kg is stated. The given reference [142] (Sender et al., 2020) however states a mass range of 0.1-10kg. 89.160.8.66 (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:SARS-CoV-2 scanning electron microscope image.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 22, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-02-22. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a strain of coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory disease responsible for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This scanning electron micrograph shows SARS-CoV-2 virions (gold) emerging from the surface of cells cultured in a laboratory. The virus particles depicted were isolated from a patient in the United States.

Photograph credit: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Recently featured:

• The Birth of the Milky Way
• Indus River
• Django Reinhardt

Out of date part of article?

"Preliminary research indicates that the virus may remain viable on plastic (polypropylene) and stainless steel (AISI 304) for up to three days, but it does not survive on cardboard for more than one day or on copper for more than four hours." appears well out-of-date(?) as I thought I saw a journal article relating to research in Australia, now itself quite a while ago but several months later than this 'preliminary' research that suggested the virus could survive for up to 28 days on steel, perhaps in a dark environment undisturbed and in cold winter weather. I also think it could be on plastic for up to 5 or 7 days - virus in one piece of research I seem to remember (no idea where any of it is now) could not be detected on the seventh day. It appears to me the initial research is no longer the position that we know now and, in short, is likely out-of-date. However I do not know whether the extended time periods necessarily showed that the virus, where it was still found, was viable. In addition though, I haven't seen any evidence as to whether the time periods of survival of viable virus are different, possibly longer, with Omicron etc. (logic to me as a layperson might suggest that perhaps it could last longer on surfaces when Omicron appears to be able to remain present in unventilated indoor spaces in the air for quite a lot longer than the original virus (in excess of 2 1/2 days as opposed to up to 16 hours originally) but I suspect with SARS-CoV-2 it might confound what I think might be logical, as it usually turns out to do things 'unexpected' by (some) scientists that I expect it will do because it will be unusual and different to what has been previously encountered - I think, if anyone has assumptions, the assumptions are usually wrong). aspaa (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

1) We would need secondary sources on this, not a primary research article.
2) It is important to emphasize that such studies must be based in virus isolation and culture rather than nucleic acid amplification in order to be useful for this question. The latter, often referred to as "PCR-based methods" can have false positives when nucleic acids are still present, but no viable virus remains. Similarly, some patients continue to test "PCR-positive" for several months after clearing the infection.
3) It is overall unlikely that this virus would remain viable for that long, as it is a lipid-membrane-enveloped virus. Such lipid bilayers break down relatively quickly in the open air, on the order of 3-4 days to zero viable particles. [1] [2] We don't have much reason to believe SARS-CoV-2 would be much different. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

misisleading to refer to SARS-CoV2 as the "successor" to SARS-CoV1

The last sentence of the first paragraph:

"As described by the US National Institutes of Health, it is the successor to SARS-CoV-1, the virus that caused the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak.[16]"

is misleading and should be removed.

Although the cited reference does use the word "successor", the usage seems to imply that SARS-CoC2 is derived from SARS-CoV1. There is no evidence for this and substantial reason to believe that it is false (chiefly, that SARS-CoV1 was eradicated in 2004 and hasn't been seen anywhere in the world since then).

I suggest simply erasing this sentence, or, if it is deemed necessary to refer to SARS-CoV1, substituting:

"An unrelated coronavirus, now designated SARS-CoV1, caused the SARS epidemic of 2002-2004 and was eradicated in 2004."