Talk:COVID-19

The phrase "close contact" is a term of art in epidemiology and should not appear in the lead

According to WP:INTRO uncommon terms should not be used in the lead unless they are essential to the topic. The words "contact" and "close contact" in epidemiology mean the point of transmission of a disease or a person who has spread the disease at a point of transmission. Since the ordinary meaning of "contact" in the context of explaining specific proximity means a "union or junction of surfaces", i.e., to touch, the use of the phrase "close contact" should not be used in the lead. Since non-epidemiologists will assume the phase means "to touch", the phrase should be avoided and instead specific language describing the closeness of proximity required for transmission should be used. Sparkie82 (t•c) 14:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

But the CDC is just as much a resource aimed at general readers and states "The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person ... Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet)." Don't they worry about confusing non-epidemiologists as well? Why should we use a different phraseology from that used by our principal sources? --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not unusual for specialists in a field to use language that makes since to them but has a different meaning for a lay readership. Also, the quote you cited gives a parenthetical definition of the phase in context, whereas the lead in this WP article does not, it only provides a footnote that most people will never read. So readers who read only the lead may assume that "close contact" means touching. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

How about changing it to The virus is primarily spread between people in close proximity? --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guidebook

WP:NOTADVICE is quite clear that we may not issue instructions in Wikipedia's voice: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." I've removed the disputed text "Medical grade facemasks such as N95 masks should be reserved and prioritised for healthcare workers and first responders." that was re-inserted by Gammapearls claiming consensus: "Undid revision 966010983 by Wikmoz (talk) restoring consensus version". I'd like to see a link to the discussion where that consensus was reached. --RexxS (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Firm agreement from me. That was a near textbook example of instruction/advice being delivered in Wikipedia's voice, and clearly forbidden by WP:NOTADVICE. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RexxS I wasn't involved in previous discussions about the lede for this article but this line has gone through several rewrites since April, and is a more condensed version of content that has been in the lede for months. If you are going to remove it from the article text, then perhaps you would consider removing it from the lede as well? Gammapearls (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead version says "Health officials also stated that...", which is very different from Wikipedia stating it and is therefore not a violation of WP:NOTADVICE. No comment on whether it is otherwise appropriate, or whether the body content should be reintroduced in a NOTADVICE-compliant way. Oh, and a slight puzzlement - the lead should be a condensed version of the body, not the other way round. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gammapearls: if you're going to use consensus as a reason for reverting a sourced change that fixed the NOTADVICE issue, you're going to have to be clear about the consensus you're relying on. I take it you're unable to link to the discussion?

On an article under sanctions, we should not be replacing text that has been challenged by reversion without getting a consensus on the talk page. Personally I think the advice is relevant to the article and should be included, but we can't just leave it in the form you used. --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The article text Rexx removed seems to be an earlier version. From May 31: [1]. The "health officials" part is a recent addition. My edit simply reverted new changes because I believed the lede content had consensus. I'm not as familiar with the article history as Rexx. Gammapearls (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gammapearls: the article text I removed was

• Medical grade facemasks such as N95 masks should be reserved and prioritised for healthcare workers and first responders.

That is clearly the text that you inserted two edits earlier, and anyone can see that. When you revert, or make any change, you take responsibility for the text you add to an article. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

IFR and WHO

Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at WHO, said that average of IFR figures presented was at about 0.6%. During a Press conference on July 3 [2]. According to several press reports, she also said it's the scientific consensus (I'm glad I found the videoclip). For those in the dark about it, Worst cases scenarios are always envisaged seriously, always dragging the mean IFR a little higher than best estimates.

I think it would be useful to add this source to our IFR chapter even if it's on youtube. I do not intend to add content. The CDC source already say 0.2% to 1.0% (mean of 0.6%) and most probable estimate at 0.4%. Having the WHO and the CDC roughly agreeing with each other gives a lot of weight to their POV in the chapter and it's good for the reader as well as future editors. And allows us to slowly cut down older sources. Iluvalar (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The WHO has made available a written transcript of that media briefing here, so you have a good source that can be used to support content (the relevant part for CFR is after the heading "00:53:31") even if you feel that YouTube videos present problems in being used as sources. I'm sure everyone appreciates the importance of not using news reports for content when the original 'unfiltered' expert or scholarly work is available. --RexxS (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think youtube is just a platform. This is obviously a press conference from WHO which is not reliable at all imo. But I have no plan to affirm what they said, I just want to affirm that they said it. And they are notable enough for that to be relevant. As you know i'm on the look out for any IFR source I can find. So what is best in your opinion ? The transcript or the video ? Iluvalar (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't statements from the WHO be reliable? From WP:MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." The WHO is clearly an international expert body.

Notability is what you look for when deciding whether a topic should have an article. Content is based on what the best quality reliable sources say. Because number of infections can only be estimated at present (although the population is an upper bound and confirmed cases is a lower bound) and IFR will vary from place to place, we are unlikely to get a proper picture until well after the pandemic has subsided.

You'll find that editors are suspicious of YouTube because it's a self-published platform (although that video looks solid to me), so why not use the transcript – nobody is going to argue with that. --RexxS (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

They had the source : [3] saying that 1% of Wuhan was infected. Even with a state of the art research center dedicated to Coronaviruses in it. It was 1% of the world most likely, yet they waited 40 days to call it a pandemic. Knowing fully well that it could double every week. They didn't even bother asking other countries to test the hypothesis. Covid-19 is pretty much a text book mutation of coronavirus. And honestly, I'm just really deceived about how the WHO is managing this. Each country in the world having to conduct their own research. Not even being told to do so. Just slowly realizing a month later that the WHO only wait for others researches to make an average of them. I really don't think this pandemic alert system work. Sorry for this editorial, TL;DR. I have no faith in WHO to manage this. Iluvalar (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There are already several peer-reviewed articles that establish similar IFRs, consistent with the WHO figure above--this might even be the data they are relying on (I do not add these myself as I already got reverted once and I don't want to get sanctioned):

• A study using data out of China published in The Lancet found an overall IFR of .66%: "Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis"
• A study using data out of France published in the journal Science found an IFR of .7%: "Estimating the burden of SARS-CoV-2 in France"

Both of these are discussed in a news article in the journal Nature: "How deadly is the coronavirus? Scientists are close to an answer". Someone who knows the rules for this article/feels more confident than me should add these. JEN9841 (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you JEN9841, I would say that there is a constant tendency for the IFR estimates to go down. There is an overwhelming amount of evidences that COVID have been around for longer and infected more people then previously expected. Antibody tests, old blood samples, sewage samples, the discovery of more asymptomatic cases etc. The perfect example of this is here [4]. I prefer putting more weight on the CDC estimates which have millions of cases to analyse then one based on the Diamond Princess or early Wuhan cases. Iluvalar (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that your criticism of the WHO stands scrutiny, and your understanding of what is required for an epidemic to be declared a pandemic is lacking. That narrative has been put out to mask the inaction of governments, such as the US, during the early stages of the outbreak, and is clearly politically motivated to create a scapegoat. The current upsurge in cases in the USA is indicative of the problems that are experienced by ignoring advice. The WHO is an international body with global expertise and is at least as trustworthy as the CDC in making statements that concern health.

Both the Lancet and the Sciencemag articles are primary sources, and unsuitable for use to support biomedical information in Wikipedia. Both of them have been subject to corrections, and that illustrates perfectly why we don't rush to take on board what primary studies say. The Sciencemag article had to change its estimate of the IFR from from 0.65% down to 0.53% because three people whom they assumed would die survived. Numbers that are based on so many assumptions become not much more than guesswork, and as I previously noted, we are very unlikely to be able to get good estimates of a particular region's IFR until well after the pandemic has ended. --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A this point, we are simply sharing opinions RexxS. I will add the WHO transcript because it's notable, not because it's trustworthy. Feel free to disagree, as long as we agree to add the transcript. I remind you that USA increased the tests by 4 time in a few weeks. They are still detecting about 7% positives no matter the amount of tests done. [5]. The recent increase of confirmed cases doesn't mean much in that context; You can confirm as much as you test. We also yet to see the impact of recent unrest, we should logically see a bump in the data. Iluvalar (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext just to get an idea of a recent estimate of seroprevalence. You should be able to work out that over the last 17 days, a 25% increase of tests against a 100% increase in confirmed cases (to an unprecedented 50,000 per day), is a huge concern. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would those articles being primary sources mean they cannot be added? Their inclusion seems to be consistent with Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources and Wikipedia:No original research. JEN9841 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@JEN9841: the guideline governing sources for medical content is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). You'll find the answer to your question there. --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah alright, thank you. But what about the coverage of these primary sources in the article in Nature I mention? Seems like that counts as a "reliable, third-party published secondary source[]" (if contextualized the way they are in the article). JEN9841 (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@JEN9841: I think you can work out the answer by considering why we ask for the highest quality secondary sources for our biomedical content. That content needs to be based on an analysis of primary sources that Wikipedia editors are not trusted to do. In other words, the interpretation of primary sources, the weighing of what is significant and what is important need to be done by a good secondary source. That's why we're looking for systematic and literature reviews, quality meta-analyses published in top quality academic journals, and statements from inter/national health bodies to provide the added value for us. Ask yourself what the article in the News section of Nature adds to the primary sources? The answer is not much beyond the lay explanations, and it's what is labelled popsci. You are familiar with Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources #Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?, so you have observed how news reports are often primary sources because they do nothing more than disseminate the sources they are reporting on. In the case of the Nature news article, it's in rather more of a grey area because the publication itself lends gravitas to the content of the article, and the author has reasonable academic credentials. It does some comparisons (e.g. of estimates of IFR) but note how the author is careful to keep the IFR estimates in perspective:

Several researchers, including Russell and Verity, find it interesting that a growing number of studies from different regions have estimated IFRs in the range of 0.5–1%. But other scientists are cautious about suggestions of agreement. “The trend is potentially more luck than anything else,” says Meyerowitz-Katz.

I think there may well some content that we could legitimately use, but it would need to hedge it with the same caveats as the article makes if we are to represent its conclusions accurately. --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The Chief Scientist at WHO, reported that the average of IFR figures presented at the Global Research and Innovation Forum on COVID-19, a two day conference virtually attended by 1300 experts was about 0.6%. This sounds like a summary, not primary research and WHO passes WP:MEDRS (specifically WP:MEDORG). The statement appears in the official transcript and is confirmed in a video passing WP:TRANSCRIPTION. The statement was notable enough to be referenced in The New York Times. JEN9841 further demonstrated that this is in line with estimates presented in respected scientific publications The Lancet and Science (even their revised estimate) so it's not a fringe or controversial estimate. Also, as noted above supported by estimates reported in Nature. I'm not sure what more is needed. We reported WHO's initial 3.4% CFR estimate, quoting the WHO Director-General's speech without requiring secondary analysis and do the same for other epidemiology sources like OWID and CEBM. I agree that the numbers will keep changing but I think it's fine to present current best estimates. Hopefully, a solid meta analysis will be published soon. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: That's what the opening post in this thread said. Statements from an expert body like the WHO are perfectly good source material for our article. I'm also not sure what else is needed, other than to say that news reports and popsci are not relevant as sources, particularly when we have solid secondary sources. You've missed the point about analysis. The secondary source does the analysis – in this case the WHO averaged a number of estimates for IFR and came up with a figure, and that's what the DG reported to the media. We don't need a further layer of analysis. Of course the numbers will keep changing as explained in the virtual press conference (pages 21-22, 00:55:00 onwards) because IFR depends on so many factors and is not a constant across different populations. It would be nice to see a solid meta analysis, but for all the reasons explained, it seems unlikely in the near future. --RexxS (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood the reason for deletion. I've restored the relevant text in the IFR section with the original text cited. In related news, there was a massive seroprevalence study conducted in Spain and published in The Lancet a few days ago. Hopefully, an RS will crunch the numbers and publish the corresponding IFR estimates. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your update looks good. I mentioned the seroprevalence study seven posts above as being particularly interesting. It looks like it yields some quality estimates of IFR for Spain, which suffered quite badly early on in the outbreak, perhaps due to the age-profile of the population. We really need some expert analysis to get those sort of perspectives, but I don't suppose that will happen for some time, sadly. --RexxS (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ty Wikmoz for the addition. The IFR is still a little high, but at least our chapter is start to look coherent between sources. Now I wait a source that will mention the obvious that with 1.4% of the people infected, 1.4% of all deaths will have Covid-19 accidentally (potentially 1 millions false positive per year). Iluvalar (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My edits were trying to fix an existing error

Please take a look at the underlying code in the talk section above. When the system added my requested edit, it created an error that hid a number of sections, including part of my request. I couldn't figure out where the error occurred, so I created a new section and reposted my request. If you want to correct the rest of the problem, please fix the code. It would be much appreciated. Stoney1976 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Stoney1976, I fixed the issue: it's because you introduced ref tags in #Reference system that didn't have proper closing tags to follow them. In the future, if you wish to discuss ref tags, please at the very least enclose them in nowiki tags like this:

<nowiki><ref name="example"></nowiki>

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually know about ref tags, though I am not immune to typos. I had entered my requested edit via the template the system presented as directed, but somehow when the system added it, something went wrong. I guess I could have made a typo in the edit, but I thought I previewed it before I sent it. Thanks for your efforts either way! Stoney1976 (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Need "extended confirmed user" or administrator to add new advice from the CDC regarding prevention:

Please add to end of the section on "Prevention": — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoney1976 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Enhanced ventilation. The CDC recommends ventilation of all public spaces to help dilute and clear out potentially infectious aerosols. This can be achieved by increasing the percentage of outside air, increasing the total airflow to occupied spaces, disabling demand-control ventilation (DCV) controls, and using natural ventilation (e.g., opening windows and doors if possible and safe to do so).

Enhanced filtration. The CDC recommends enhancing filtration in building heating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems as part of an overall risk mitigation plan in conjunction with consideration of "compatibility with HVAC system capabilities for both temperature and humidity control as well as compatibility with outdoor/indoor air quality considerations." It should be designed in consultation with a professional or it may be counterproductive. The CDC recommends increasing air filtration as high as is possible (MERV 13 or 14) without reducing design airflow. This may require replacing the current HVAC system with one that can better handle such filters which create more resistance to air flow. Other recommendations include using appropriate, correctly installed filters, running ventilation systems continuously, and creating separate ventilation zones for higher and lower risk areas of the building (e.g., individual offices on a different zone than office gym).

Another option may be to add freestanding air cleaners, which range in size from tabletop units for homes and restaurants to units for large rooms. The CDC recommends considering portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) fan/filtration systems to further clean the air, especially in areas where virus particles are likely to be most concentrated.

UV systems. The CDC recommends ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) as part of an overall system to help inactivate the virus. This should be done as part of an overall mitigation plan in consultation with a professional because the specifics of the system are critical to safety and effectiveness.

Bathrooms. The CDC recommends that bathroom fans be working and at full capacity when people are in the building. Stoney1976 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to use the edit request. You are a confirmed user; just start a section with a level 2 heading and make your statements. That will avoid potential for mistakes. MartinezMD (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that being said, these recommendations don't seem to go in the "disease" article and are likely better suited in another one of the coronavirus articles. MartinezMD (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I tried to add it myself, but it wouldn't let me at the time because the page had recently experienced some vandalism. I will try again. This seems to be the main COVID-19 article. I'll see if there are any COVID-19 articles focused on prevention/mitigation, but even if there are, I would think that a brief summary of ways to prevent infection would be good to have in the main article. Stoney1976 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It still says that only "only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it." It shows me a "source" tab instead of an "edit" tab. Stoney1976 (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

They recently restricted the protection further. 1 month and 500 edits to be able to edit. Make some edits to other articles and get your count to 500. Then you'll be cleared to edit here. MartinezMD (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, please feel free to continue using the edit request template. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Stoney1976 (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Stoney1976: Thanks for the information. Another possible place for this is workplace hazard controls for COVID-19 but we have to breathe at home too. There's also open-air treatment as this is not a new idea. I myself bought a HEPA quality Dyson air filter when the pandemic arose and it's good to see that the CDC are now confirming their utility. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was glad to see the CDC add it too. I was thinking of this information as useful in preventing infection by reducing COVID-19 load/dose/levels in the air at home and at work. There is a problem with infection of "family clusters." This suggests things to consider trying. Someone might not look at the workplace page for suggestions regarding how to prevent infection in the home. At the very least, it would be good to have a brief synopsis of prevention suggestions on this page and links to any more detailed pages about home or workplace solutions. Stoney1976 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Since I can't edit, here's a link which mentions complications with the brain by covid-19

This article talks about complications with the brain, they're not written in the disease card: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/scientists-warn-potential-wave-covid-linked-brain-damage-n1233150 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer abcd (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Neurologic manifestations are discussed in the Complications section and are supported by this new report in Brain (cited in the NBC article) and this June report in STAT News. Haven't made any changes but the Complications section should be updated to incorporate new research and it's probably worth adding to the infobox. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WHO has changed FAQ for transmission

[6]

Please change:

The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,[a] most often via small droplets produced by coughing,[b] sneezing, and talking.[6][20][22] The droplets usually fall to the ground or onto surfaces rather than travelling through air over long distances,[6] although in some cases they may remain airborne for tens of minutes.

to:

The virus may spread between people when they directly contact each other, or are in close proximity. It is thought to do so via secretions, saliva, or contaminated droplets, which are expelled from the mouth or nose, including when coughing, sneezing, speaking or singing. It may also spread when people touch surfaces contaminated with these secretions or droplets, and then their face. Smaller droplets known as aerosols may also be implicated, notably where there is poor ventilation or crowded indoor spaces. [7] [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.162.136 (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm editing the article with a slight tweak based on the latest WHO guidelines:

The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,[a] most often via small droplets produced by coughing,[b] sneezing, and talking.[6][20][22] The droplets usually fall to the ground or onto surfaces rather than travelling through air over long distances.[6] Transmission may also occur through smaller droplets (called aerosols) that are able to stay suspended in the air for longer periods of time. Aerosol transmission can happen during some medical procedures and potentially in crowded indoor spaces that are inadequately ventilated. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)