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)

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 19 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 matter 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)

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)

These are the specific level of instructions for PPE for this disease which are different than say the instructions were for Ebola which you can see Ebola_virus_disease#Putting_on_protective_equipment

This is not how to, but simple the recommendations from the CDC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 11 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)

Antivirals

I removed a paragraph, because it resembled a list created by various sources, some of them non-RS. We should strive to find an article that presents this specific topic (research on antivirals) rather than using a dozen of questionable sources. Here is the text I removed.

Antivirals being tested include chloroquine, darunavir, galidesivir, interferon beta, the lopinavir/ritonavir combination, the RNA polymerase inhibitor remdesivir, and triazavirin. Umifenovir (Arbidol) and darunavir were proposed by the National Health Commission.

References

Any feedback is welcomed. Cinadon36 17:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone included this info already. This is obviously an important info, and it is well sourced - based on the references above. If anyone wants to improve this content further, they are very welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I've added MBJ Best Practices as the source for the list of trialled antivirals. Authors aggregated information about therapy investigations so we could use this source of information. Information is updated periodically. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@D6194c-1cc: Just seen it. Much better now. Cinadon36 22:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Does this infringe copyright policy?

An illustration of the effect of spreading out infections over a long period of time on healthcare capacity managing patient volumes, known as flattening the curve

@Diannaa:, can we have your wisdom on this? The illustration is a property of the nz magazine, as I get it. Cinadon36 17:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In either event, it's either meta or instructional, which is not really what we should be going for here. Dekimasuよ! 17:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: totally agree. Cinadon36 17:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it's not appropriate for the article, but on copyright it looks fine. The creators released it on a CC-BY-SA licence.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Are you sure? I can not find the original creator. Is it Drew Harris? https://twitter.com/drewaharris/status/1233267475036372992 Maybe @splette https://twitter.com/splette/status/1236345661962039297. But the illustration on WP article, is created by thespinoff.co.nz. And there is no mention of the licence. Cinadon36 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A reviewer at the Commons has checked and states that the license is okay. — Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Great, thanks! Cinadon36 20:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

And you're happy to believe them when you didn't believe me? Why don't you ask that person if they're wrong as well?  — Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I understand why you feel offended dear Amakuru, but see it from my perspective. I was told by one other user that is ok- I wasn't convinced. Then another editor had the same opinion as the first user. Why should I continue talking about it? I haven't really understand why I am wrong on it, but I am probably wrong since 2 users have an opposite opinion and I am not really familiar with copyright infringements. Thank you for your replies. Cinadon36 21:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: apologies for being snarky here earlier... you caught me at a bad time! To be honest, it's been tricky to trace the true origin of this graph, although everyone has attributed it along the way! The earliest version seems to be from the CDC in 2007, which they then reused again in 2017. Neither of those versions appear to release the copyright. Drew Harris then adapted his own version, as did Ros Pearce. CT Bergstrom made a version from all three of the above sources and Thomas Splettstößer adapted that still further, with the line "Feel free to use and share" but again no explicit licence. The Spin Off's version mentions Harris, Splettstößer and the CDC, and for the first time is released with a CC-BY-SA tag marked on the graphic, with the handles of the authors of this work. Is it a derivative work? If so, their CC-BY-SA might actually not be valid and we should delete it. But if the graph itself is just a generic un-copyrightable concept, with only the specific design deemed to be original, then our reuse of the Spin Off's work, maintaining their licence is acceptable. I don't know if the Commons user considered this and made a decision or not!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Copyright is ok, but "flattening the curve" is probably just a layman's term instead of an established medical jargon, because the phrase was not mentioned in any of the scientific papers but first by an Economist article (see the probable genesis I listed on c:File:Covid-19-curves-graphic-social-v3.gif).--Roy17 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Or you could have asked the person who uploaded the image itself. This image is complete appropriate when it comes to a pandemic disease.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a Lancet paper on the topic https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30567-5/fulltext

Technically it is known as "flattening the epidemic curve" but is often shortened to "flattening the curve"

Seriously this is basic epidemiology which I took 20 years ago in medical school.

These are basic scientific facts. This is like arguing that someone can "own" / "copyright" the bell curse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

yes, agree.Doc James is making a logical point, I don't see what the problem is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, that is a valid point. It is obvious that there is a strong consensus that the illustration is ok regarding copyright. My concern was on the illustration, how the one curve move into the other curve- I thought that was a creative element. Also there are two young persons talking- also a creative element. When I saw the graph on the Spin Off magazine, I was alarmed. Sorry for any inconvenience. Now it 's time to get busy with more interesting staff on CoVID-19. Cinadon36 07:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Cinadon36 agree it's time to move on, but just as a final question, are you aware that the graphic itself has a "CC-BY-SA" label printed in the bottom right corner? Which should cover all original elements in the graphic itself. Or is your concern that although they labelled it, they maybe didn't follow all the steps required for an official CC licence? Either way it looks like the intent was to release it that way...  — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru:, I had noticed the CC-BY-SA label, but since there is no number next to it (ie CC-BY-SA 2.0, 3.0 etc), my though was it might not be valid. Also, I noticed that their cited refs (which weren't pretty clear) did not use a CC-BY-SA label. Thanks for asking. Cinadon36 07:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You do realize it was created by an expert in the subject in question? Also we are working with them. They will add the number if we want. Ie they are experts in infectious disease outbreaks not CC licensing. If you can provide evidence that they got this wrong (which I do not think they have) than they will adjust it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Now to the important stuff. Prevention happens at two levels individual and population. We need to address both and this graph is about population level measures, which are harder for many people to understand by the way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James I didnt realized that it was created by an expert, I thought it was regular artwork created by a magazine employee. But what do you mean with " we are working with them"? Who are "we"? No need to add a number at the licence, since everybody thinks it is ok. I was also convinced it is ok regarding copyrights, it is obvious that the case is closed. We can re-add this material if there is no objection. (there is no objection by me, I am rather neutral) Cinadon36 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I asked them to release it under an open license and they did. This is the author Siouxsie Wiles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed this image and the original source (and related copyright permissions). The evidence meets our criteria and we should add in. Thanks for all your efforts to get permission for use JenOttawa (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cause

Dozens of people infected early in the current outbreak worked in a live-animal market in the Chinese city of Wuhan, but tests of coronavirus samples found at the market have yet to identify a source . Even a Nature article has the courage to spell out that a meat market is a common focal point of may of the early cases, but let wikipedians shill for the Chinese government and make sure the origin is muddled as much as possible. Completely encyclopedic indeed. 2601:602:9200:1310:F16B:3EF1:CDC8:D561 (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The cause is the virus, but the original biological source of the virus and the "patient zero" in China are unknown. It was not even well established if it came from this market. Please correct me with refs if I am wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ICD-10 code

I've just restored {{medical resources}} and the ICD-10 code, as it was slowly removed over a number of days after an IP added "not mentioned at target". Effectively marking it as "citation needed" but via the use of a comment tag. My problem with that is:

1. Facts don't need citations
2. External links can't have citations – it sits below the reflist
3. Classifications don't work that way! They're not nomenclatures, and can't list every condition that a code covers.

With that said, the 2019 version of ICD-10 does state COVID-19 at U07.1, so I've requested the URL at {{ICD10}} is updated to fix the verification "problem". Little pob (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

New graph based on the China CDC data

Visualization of covid-19 data in China CDC Weekly 2020, 2(8), pp. 113-122

Case fatality rates by age group in China. Data through 11 February 2020.

Hi everyone,

I found graph in connection to the reference 99 http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51 interesting, so I spent some time making an expanded version (attached to post). What do you think, would it be a good contribution to this article?

Best, Lejoon (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I like it. Put it in. Bondegezou (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I replaced the previous figure in the mortality rates section, since this figure contains the same data. Lejoon (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, certainly this is nice work but I am not sure if the graph will actually help readers get the broader picture of the epidemiology of COVID19. The problem is that these numbers vary significantly in other countries, and if I recall correctly, there are differences among various provinces within China. Mortality by COVID19 in China reflects the situation where health services are overwhelmed suddenly by huge numbers of cases. That's why the high mortality numbers are similar only to Italy's numbers. Elsewhere the story is different. Cinadon36 21:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So, the graphs/figure needs to be clearly labelled as reflecting the Chinese context, and we need text in the article describing how mortality has varied from region to region. Bondegezou (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Good points. The graph states China and the date in the title. Do you think it needs to be clearer? Lejoon (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It makes everything too small. We should have this as three separate graphs in a gallery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes this graph is confusing. Too much information. --The Cunctator (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. How about keeping the age distribution data with the age plot, and separating the other two graphs into their own pictures? Lejoon (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Lejoon not sure what you mean. Can you show me? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James Please see drafts on right-hand side. Lejoon (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft, age case fatality rate

Draft, comorbidity and severity

Former Wuhan coronavirus wiki

Why is "Wuhan coronavirus" not listed under Other Names? It looks like some substantial basis of this page was actually from a page in January substantively named "Wuhan coronavirus," and omitting a term used for months by variety of news organizations, including the Times and CNN, reads in context like a political decision, not an encyclopedic one. -- Bighardsun (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Highly irresponsible to list "runny nose" as a top-level symptom

It is very bad for the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on COVID19 - i.e. one of the primary sources for information on the disease for the entire planet - to mention "runny nose" in the symptom list without a very strong caveat, when it almost definitely indicates hayfever or a rhinovirus. Rhinorrhea doesn't even appear in the WHO-China report as an observed symptom.

This is the version that I submitted, based on a careful reading of the literature, that has been reverted:

Those affected are likely to develop a fever and dry cough. Fatigue and shortness of breath are also common indicators. Sputum production, headache, muscle pain, and sore throat are less common symptoms. Nasal congestion or runny nose are uncommon and generally associated with hayfever or the common cold.<ref name="whoqa">

--The Cunctator (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Inconsistency and proper naming

1. The article says "Time from exposure to onset of symptoms is generally between two and 14 days, with an average of five days." and then it says "The incubation period ranges from 1 to 14 days, with an estimated median incubation period of 5 to 6 days". The information should be consistent.

2. The article says "The disease is caused by the virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), previously referred to as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)". Does it mean that the current "novel coronavirus" is incorrect?

ICE77 (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Cause and Pathophysiology

@Dekimasu:, I have noticed that you deleted one of my recent additions.[8] You are right, the info is not about the cause of COVID19. It is about the pathophysiology of the disease and I think it is a pretty important aspect. So I intent to re-introduce it, under the new section "pathophysiology". What concerns me, and lead me to placing that piece of text under "cause" section, is that I wanted to avoid fragmentation of the article into several sections. Anyway, I 'd like your opinion before I proceed to any changes. Cinadon36 14:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would go under "prognosis", but I still believe it is misleading to simply state that the disease "progresses into SARS". If that were the case, this article would not exist. The virus is different, the way the disease presents is different–it is not simply SARS. Dekimasuよ! 14:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"The disease might progress into SARS". Would that be better? And I feel it is more related to the pathophysiology of the disease rather than prognosis. Also, COVID-19 could lead to cardiac or liver failure, as ACE2 enzyme is also present in liver and heart- we might add this piece, sourced, as well. Cinadon36 15:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PS- or we can leave the "progress into SARS" section out and make it like "As the alveolar disease progresses respiratory failure might develop and death might ensue."Cinadon36 15:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The final version removes the part I was objecting to, so I am fine with it. As far as having a section called "pathophysiology" that is separate from the other current sections, I think there are several editors on this page who would argue that the language is too specialized. For my part, I think there are too many sections and consolidating them to some degree would be beneficial in terms of readability. Dekimasuよ! 15:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Great, thanks, I will re-add it now. As for "pathophysiology", I share the same concern of being to technical. But a solution must be found. Maybe "mechanism"? I do not know...Cinadon36 17:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Passing mention of this Wikipedia article in press

• https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for semi-protected edit March 12,2020

I am uploading my scientific artwork, currently published - https://www.statpearls.com/as/pulmonary/52171/, to add to this wikiarticle.

I have additional images from the above article, will add all of them soon.

Image 1 - Transmission of SARS-CoV 2 [[9]]

File:Transmission of SARS-CoV 2.jpeg

Transmission of SARS-CoV 2.

Rbsingh91 —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)