Talk:COVID-19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BurntButtons (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 22 September 2020 (→‎Requested move 16 September 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

|topic= not specified. Available options:

Topic codeArea of conflictDecision linked to
{{COVID-19|topic=aa}}politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or bothWikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{COVID-19|topic=crypto}}blockchain and cryptocurrenciesWikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{COVID-19|topic=kurd}}Kurds and KurdistanWikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{COVID-19|topic=mj}}Michael JacksonWikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{COVID-19|topic=pw}}professional wrestlingWikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{COVID-19|topic=rusukr}}the Russo-Ukrainian WarWikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{COVID-19|topic=sasg}}South Asian social groupsWikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{COVID-19|topic=syria}}the Syrian Civil War and ISILWikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{COVID-19|topic=uku}}measurement units in the United KingdomWikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{COVID-19|topic=uyghur}}Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocideWikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

Template:Commonwealth English

Template:Vital article

Patient Zero?

Posssible patient zero: November, 2019 [1] [2] Marinla (talk) Marinla (talk)

References

  1. ^ [1] 'Coronavirus case from November could be patient zero.' By Amanda Woods, NYPost, March 13, 2020
  2. ^ [2] First 'Strange Pneumonia' Case Reported in November 2019 in Italy. By Jamie P. | TechTimes, Mar 23, 2020 03:46 AM EDT

I'm not sure how best to convey this information, but we know that SARS-CoV-2 was in the sewage in Spain from as early as March 2019. Here's my reference: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science/coronavirus-traces-found-in-march-2019-sewage-sample-spanish-study-shows-idUSKBN23X2HQ

Please consider incorporating this into the article ! Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.232.2 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster is correct. It was also brought to light that the first infected person was probably in September or October of 2019 in China but the WHO and China kept it "under wraps" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:fb1:530:9420:5d74:ca9:511f (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no reliable sources claiming that either WHO or China were deliberately hiding information about a novel infection in September or October 2019. One might even wonder why the logged-out editor believes that they knew there was something worth hiding back then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature editorials series

@WAID: I see Nature is starting to publish a series of dedicated editorials, with the first one titled "Progress report on the coronavirus pandemic" [3]. While editorials are not generally considered medrs-compliant, I feel this series might conceivably be useful. Hence this heads-up. 86.186.168.223 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those will be useful as background information, if nothing else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure. A useful perspective, imo, on a very rapidly changing knowledge base. Fwiw, the narrative review-style approach, which has been given the seal of approval by the editorial office of the #1 scientific journal, seems to me fully reliable all round (especially in the unprecedented circumstances). Just my 2c, 86.186.168.223 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it into a Further reading section for now. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a first approximation, pieces in academic journals that are labeled "review", including narrative reviews, are useful for Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and publications labeled "editorial" are not, because of MEDRS and fairness. I like the formulation, "whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides". In other words, if I'm going to remove claims I think are bad with the excuse that someone sourced them to an editorial, then I can't be citing editorials for stuff I think is good. MEDRS has to assume that all editors have the same level of (non-)expertise and (poor) judgment, or we end up with a POV-pushing mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo WAID's analysis of the standards needed for sources used to write content, and my strong preference would be to not use editorials for medical content. Nevertheless, that source does a decent job of making a progress report from the view of a very prestigious journal. Our guidance at Wikipedia:Further reading #Relation to reference sections gives this advice:

Further reading is not a list of general references. General references are sources actually used by editors to build the article content, but that are not presented as inline citations. By contrast, Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend.

If editors are happy to recommend the Nature editorial to our readers, it will stay; otherwise it will be removed. We can let other editors decide. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, just for the sake of clarity (@WAID et al.): I originally suggested this publication, based on the relevance (imo) of its narrative perspective on recent history, which can be helpful. IMO, Further reading is a suitable collocation, though personally I'd tend to feel it could be relied upon – if needed – for key observations that may go under the radar in many typical medrs, such as review papers and guidance. But I didn't mean to suggest using it to trump such sourcing. 86.140.161.248 (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC) (OP)[reply]

Steroids/Meds

A meta analysis has been published showing reduced mortality for patients with severe/critical disease with the use of steroids. Also, in the US, remdesivir has received emergency authorization use for all hospitalized patients, not just severe/critical as had been approved previously. I don't have time to add it at the moment, but placed the information here for other editors or for me to add later. MartinezMD (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinezMD: I think Whywhenwhohow has been updating Dexamethasone with some related content and may be able to add something useful here on the topic. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MartinezMD: I added both. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! MartinezMD (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Long term effects section

This is a poor section of the article. It is filled with news reports, opinion, weak studies. Most of it meet does not meet MEDRS. It needs significant clean up. MartinezMD (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MartinezMD, that would be me. I do not usually edit medical articles as I know there are plenty of more qualified people than I, so I was not familiar with MEDRS, but using the usual wp standards of RS and "write for a general audience", I wrote much of that section after doing a quick skim of recent articles. This is a topic which has been in the news for months now, and I believe useful to readers. While I do understand something about scientific literature, and what constitutes gold-standard studies, etc., the fact of the matter is that these do not exist as yet because COVID-19 has not been with us for long enough. What does one do in a case like this? I found yesterday that while there are a few studies reporting on specific effects like cardiac injury, liver enzymes, etc., there is as yet (unsurprisingly) nothing written up and published on the longterm effects described by so many in so many other reputable sources. As an example of future research, there's the St Vincent's Sydney ADAPT study, written up in many reliable news media ([4], [5], [6], [7]), and there are several others around the world. In the meantime, there is widespread coverage in other media and medical organisations' websites (e.g. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (US), The Guardian Australia, BMJ1 BMJ2 and BMJ3). I think that we would be doing our readers a disservice to dismiss or ignore completely what is reported in news media, but I will gladly hand over to someone who can improve the section, or make another suggestion as to how to deal with the topic. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "...these do not exist as yet because COVID-19 has not been with us for long enough. What does one do in a case like this?" Generally, I'd say don't write about it yet. Or, at least, only write something minimal as covered by appropriate sources and leave out anything speculative or not well sourced. (But I will add, Laterthanyouthink, thank you for making the effort with what sources we have). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks Boing! said Zebedee - I'm going to leave it to others now, but will just add this one Management of post-acute covid-19 in primary care - a BMJ practice guideline - because I saw it and wondered where this kind of material sits. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's perfectly ok to say they are investigating things, but some things shouldn't be in the article like some slang terms ("long-haulers" fro example) unless it becomes well-established, or the use of observational studies, like the Lancet 100-patient observational study. That kind of study is usually ripe with reporter bias. MartinezMD (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of the wearer from masks

There is growing evidence that masks protect the wearer, particularly from a fatal dose. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8 https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/masks-breathing-in-less-coronavirus-means-you-get-less-sick. I think this is an impactful issue that should be addressed in the article. I am going to add a statement and reference to this effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chogg (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to hear thoughts from others on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chogg (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one person's theory based on weak observational data. No basis for inclusion in the article at this time. MartinezMD (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MartinezMD, I don't think I agree with your argument. The reference is a peer reviewed paper written by the Associate Division Chief of a leading centre for infectious disease control (UCSF) and a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. They lead probably 100s of specialists in this field. It has also been picked up in the UK. It seems to me there is little evidence against this idea. I recommend that the language I use 'increasing evidence' should reflect this rather than remove entirely from the article. Perhaps 'recent evidence' would be a better alternative. The cost and impact of this information means that a conservative approach would be to include some reference to this information. I suppose I don't entirely understand you reasoning for such an extreme recommendation as to delete entirely. If further counter evidence is available I might agree with you, but for now I would leave it in. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chogg (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chogg: It's not a matter of agreement among editors here. It's a matter of policy. A peer reviewed paper still is not necessarily a WP:MEDRS source because primary sources are peer-reviewed as well.
The paper introduces a novel hypothesis. When there is actual solid evidence that has appeared in a good quality secondary source, then we'll have something to write about. It doesn't matter if there's little evidence against the idea. Ideas are not medical facts. If you're having difficulty in understanding the difference between primary and secondary sources, I suggest studying WP:PSTS and asking if you are unsure. This article is under general sanctions and editors need to adhere to the highest standards when adding content. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As above. The same could've been said about hydroxychloroquine. There was a lot of suggestion it could be helpful but ultimately has not been shown to be helpful. Since this is a massive pandemic, it is important to stick to established facts. This is also an encyclopedia, not a place to promote the latest theories. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING - "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." MartinezMD (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for the clarification. I think that makes sense to me. If I come across evidence from a secondary source that supports this I'll come back. I do appreciate this is an important issue to judge appropriately. I hope I'm being helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chogg (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political interference and misinformation

See here. It's best to include a section on political interference and misinformation. Count Iblis (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 September 2020

Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19 – Wikipedia prefers to use common names as article titles, and practically everyone refers to the Coronavirus disease 2019 as COVID-19. The article on the pandemic has already been renamed to COVID-19 pandemic, so this article should probably be renamed as well. CriticalMaster95 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons above stated. NovumChase (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While WP:COMMONNAME applies to diseases and scientific names with more common terms, this would go against the title standards for other diseases that are commonly referred to by their acronym (See Middle East respiratory syndrome, Eastern equine encephalitis, Severe acute respiratory syndrome, etc). Although it is more common for the disease to be referred to as COVID-19, so is MERS, EEE and SARS. If the world adopts a colloquial name for this disease (e.g. Wuhan virus) that takes over such an overwhelming majority as COVID-19, then I would support a change in title. Babegriev (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support precedent in wikipedia is HIV/AIDS, can follow common name as acronym. Per MOS:ACROTITLE if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject, and COVID-19 passes both tests. In medicine, in academic publications, COVID-19 is far more comminly used than Coronavirus Diseases 2019 --Investigatory (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC), and in the extensive prior move discussion of the pandemic page, COVID-19 is the commonest name. --Investigatory (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clear common name of the disease. BD2412 T 01:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per MOS:ACROTITLE, things like Central Intelligence Agency are not moved to their acronyms per their usage in "professional and academic publications". Professional or academic publications regarding COVID-19 always name the disease first as "Coronavirus disease 2019" or similar (ex: "novel coronavirus disease 2019") - not "COVID-19". I also agree with Babegriey that for medical articles we prefer not to use abbreviations in article titles. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here because it does not cover using an acronym versus a full name - that is covered by a separate guideline (the MOS on acronyms in article titles). Given that COVID-19 and Coronavirus disease 2019 are the same other than that one is an acronym, WP:COMMONNAME is met here because the title is already at the common name. For this reason, anyone arguing COMMONNAME is arguing for the current title just as much as for COVID-19 as the title. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • False, COVID-19 seems to also be more common in scholarly publications, see: COVID-19.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the style precedent for other diseases, and per the reference to MOS:ACROTITLE's exception for common referral names in academic publications mentioned above. That said, those particular style precedents don't seem very solid and could be subject to change, especially as ACROTITLE supports using abbreviations where commonly known in most other contexts. This would not seem to be the venue for debating such a precedent change, however, and so for now oppose unless that gets debated elsewhere. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - Furthermore, the naming of this page as it is currently is included as an established consensus point here, so changing this would also be to challenge that existing consensus on this specific issue. BlackholeWA (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of the point of a move request: to change consensus. -- Calidum 03:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calidum, not really. The point of a move request is to change local consensus. Per WP:CONLEVEL, a consensus here does not override the guideline at MOS:ACROTITLE, and the consensus BlackholeWA linked to is wider (spanning at least two pages) than this.
There's also a point, which I tried to bring up, that anyone arguing "common name applies" is arguing for the current name - "COVID-19" is simply an acronym for "COronaVIrus Disease 2019" - meaning that the current name is wholly acceptable. Furthermore, there are at least three diseases with "common" acronyms linked above, all of which have their articles at the full name - HIV/AIDS being the exception. TLDR: Common name is "Coronavirus disease 2019" which is abbreviated as "COVID-19" - so the article should be at the common name and the abbreviation defined in the first sentence and thereafter used if desired. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of acronyms used as titles. HIV has been mentioned above. There is also DNA and RNA. Outside the medical world we have NASA, NATO and KGB. I'm sure you can name others, like LSD and THC, where the title is spelled out. The point is, the MOS allows to decide whether to use the full title or an acronym on a case-by-case basis. So LOCALCONSENSUS isn't an issue. -- Calidum 04:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calidum, there's also plenty of titles that have acronyms but are not used as the title - including Central Intelligence Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, All Nippon Airways... my point is that naming a bunch of stuff is useless and does not help this discussion. As I said above, are not moved to their acronyms per their usage in "professional and academic publications" - you have yet to say why we should override this statement which is agreed upon in a project-wide MOS guideline for this article. HIV is mostly referred to in academic/professional publications by HIV - so that makes sense - as are DNA/RNA. Things outside the biological field do not make sense to compare to.
Please note that COVID-19 wikiproject are not consensuses, they are discussions only with the equivalent enforcement over COVID-19 wikipages as a simple essay. --Investigatory (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be ignoring that while yes, the MOS allows for decision, it also provides a guideline based on usage in "professional and academic publications" - which still refer to the disease by its full name at least on first mention before switching to the acronym later in the article. COVID-19 is not used as the sole name of the disease in academic articles - thus MOS:ACROTITLE says we should use the full name of the disease as our title. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Academic publications tend not to use Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the title, because COVID-19 is acceptable and clear for a title. We should do the same, MOS:ACROTITLE meets every criteria. --Investigatory (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Investigatory, MOS:ACROTITLE does not say "used in the title", it says usage in "professional and academic publications" - and in professional and academic publications, the term is almost universally "Coronavirus disease 2019" (with or without a comma) on first use, followed by the acronym. This is common for many things in academia - acronyms may be used in the title simply for space/formatting reasons - journals are a publication like any other, and the use of an acronym in the title saves print space. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The formal name is hardly ever used here, unlike the flu, where the shorter name is more common but the full name is still in use. -- Calidum 03:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Eventually the common name should win, as with Polio. The common name at this point is probably just COVID, Covid or Covid-19. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE. While the disease commonly known by just its acronym, including SARS, MERS, and others, academic sources tend to refer the disease by that long form name, such as COVID-19 as Coronavirus Disease 2019, SARS referred as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, and many more. If this article moved to just acronym title as COVID-19 for example, if would precedents for other users to move all diseases names to just acronym that commonly used by people (SARS, MERS) even Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 would be moved to SARS-CoV 2 if this page was moved. 110.137.184.148 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They dont though, if you look at scholar most are COVID-19 --Investigatory (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 110.137.184.148 this isn't like BBC but more like World Health Organization even though the latter is often abbreviated as "WHO". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME blindlynx (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Not every article title has to have a common name. Just because the pandemic is called the "COVID-19 pandemic" does not mean that it should be renamed to "COVID-19" as well. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. The official name of the disease is "Coronavirus disease 2019" caused by SARS-CoV-2. COVID is just an abbreviation of the name.~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE. Re google numbers, see Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t. Needs better evidence to show COVID-19 is most common usage in academia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE. There's well-established precedent on Wikipedia of more common acronyms not being used in article titles as an exception to the general rule on using the most common name for the title, and I think this article is in line with those other exceptions. See FBI, CIA, NAFTA, etc. "Coronavirus" is also a very common name for this disease, so "coronavirus disease" should be very recognizable to most readers. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree with comments above that the article should remain with the longer title and with COVID-19 being an abbreviation that redirects to the page. - Dyork (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Berchanhimez, and agree with BlackholeWA that this would not be the place to change the standard. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree that Covid-19 searches should redirect here and name should remain Coronavirus Disease 2019 as this is already the common name and Covid-19 is an abbreviation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Siccsucc (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different target Move to "Severe acute respiratory syndrome 2"(SARS 2) instead as NIH lists this name and it is the systematically correct name for this disease (SARS↔SARS-CoV, SARS 2↔SARS-CoV-2). Erkin Alp Güney 14:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME Asartea Talk 15:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per points above and agree that COVID-19 should redirect to the article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm in favor of the common name, not the common abbreviation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Coronavirus disease 2019 should definitely be an alternate title in the first sentence, but this is a global phenomenon that has been exhaustively referred to as COVID-19. I understand the rules support either interpretation, but at a certain level of adoption, the decision has to favor the term used by billions of people, and that has a clear winner. Same path as polio[myelitis]. Juansmith (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. COVID–19 is more convenient, more memorable and quicker to type. SpookiePuppy (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "COVID-19" is the abbreviation of "Coronavirus disease 2019" and it redirects to the primary article, so it will still be a quicker shortcut to this coronavirus disease. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of quick shortcuts, of some note is that if you type COVID-19 into google this page isn't in the top results, but if you type COVID-19 pandemic into google that page is one of the first results. No idea about how search engine works, but might be because this page is not using the WP:COMMONNAME --Investigatory (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asymptomatic cases rate

Hello,

I recently undid an edit which changed the number to 16% based on a WHO brief. I did this because upon investigation, the WHO brief itself is citing doi:10.1101/2020.05.10.20097543 - which is a preprint. Given that the WHO is not providing this number based on their review of the evidence, and that the article cited is a preprint, I think it is premature to use that number and citation at this time. However, I tried to find a newer systematic review than the one currently cited, and couldn't - so I figured I'd post here to see what others think. Thanks, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made that edit on the good faith of WHO being a reliable secondary source. The Oran DP, Topol EJ review is just one among many used in the systematic review, so I thought it was more accurate. Feelthhis (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: sorry, but that's exactly the sort of original research that we don't allow Wikipedia editors to do. We have to work on the assumption that the experts at the WHO are familiar with a whole range of sources and make an informed decision on the statements they make. We can't do detective work and disallow a secondary source because we're dissatisfied with what we think was a source used by the secondary source. It may be that whoever decided to use the 16% figure was aware of other research that gave similar results and therefore had more confidence in it than you have. But we cannot read the minds of the experts who make the statements and we have to accept their judgement in place of our own. It's fine for us editors to assess the quality of a source, but not to discard a quality secondary cause because of our own misgivings about its methodology, etc.
Nevertheless, I agree that the WHO source should not be summarised by a bald "16% asymptomatic" statement. It is far more nuanced than that:

The extent of truly asymptomatic infection in the community remains unknown. The proportion of people whose infection is asymptomatic likely varies with age due to the increasing prevalence of underlying conditions in older age groups (and thus increasing risk of developing severe disease with increasing age), and studies that show that children are less likely to show clinical symptoms compared to adults. Early studies from the United States and China reported that many cases were asymptomatic, based on the lack of symptoms at the time of testing; however, 75-100% of these people later developed symptoms. A recent systematic review estimated that the proportion of truly asymptomatic cases ranges from 6% to 41%, with a pooled estimate of 16% (12%–20%). However, all studies included in this systematic review have important limitations. For example, some studies did not clearly describe how they followed up with persons who were asymptomatic at the time of testing to ascertain if they ever developed symptoms, and others defined “asymptomatic” very narrowly as persons who never developed fever or respiratory symptoms, rather than as those who did not develop any symptoms at all. A recent study from China that clearly and appropriately defined asymptomatic infections suggests that the proportion of infected people who never developed symptoms was 23%.

I would devote more than one sentence to summarising the key information from that briefing, especially the range 12% to 20% and the Chinese 23% estimate, along with the actual extent remaining unknown. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, I'm not particularly sure how it qualifies as "original research". Just as the New York Times publishing an opinion piece does not mean they're throwing their weight behind it, the WHO quoting a preprint does not mean it is suddenly a reliable source. I furthermore would like to quote the opening page of the brief: This
scientific brief is not a systematic review. Rather, it reflects the consolidation of rapid reviews of publications in peer-reviewed journals and of non-peer-reviewed manuscripts on pre-print servers, undertaken by WHO and partners. Preprint findings should be interpreted with caution in the absence of peer review. - the WHO itself is telling us to take caution in using data from preprint sources just because they quoted it in their brief. Honestly, this reeks of something similar to money laundering to me - we would never consider using the fact from a preprint in the article, but it's now completely okay just because it was republished (not endorsed) by the WHO? That makes absolutely no sense. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: WP:Original research occurs when an editor interprets a source rather than neutrally summarises it. You did the former. If the NYT or any other publisher publishes a statement, it does "throw its weight behind it", or at least imbues it with whatever reputation the publisher has. That's an important factor in how Wikipedians determine the reliability of a source: a piece published in the Sun isn't going to carry the same weight as a similar piece published in the Guardian, for example. Likewise when the WHO publishes a statement on a medical matter, it does so with the weight of its expertise as a recognised authority on medical issues. You have no idea how many articles the authors of the WHO brief had examined when they chose to mention the preprint study. They are the experts in the field and you are not. When the WHO prints its consolidation of sources, (not reprints it), it does give a kind of endorsement to the source. That is the function of secondary sources, and we value that so much that we strongly prefer secondary sources to primary ones, and even more so for medical content. Nevertheless, it rightly warns readers to "interpret with caution" preprint findings, although that is irrelevant to Wikipedia editors, who must not interpret sources at all, merely summarise them in as neutral a manner as possible. Finally, if you believe that the WHO brief is not a reliable source, you can test that at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but I doubt you'll find any support for that view. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, I did not interpret anything. The WHO clearly calls it out as a preprint, and the WHO specifically calls for caution when using preprint. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that it's not a preprint because it was "re"printed... that makes no sense whatsoever. I'll cede though, because I don't really feel like explaining this again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: You think you did not interpret anything; I'm sure you did. We agree that the the WHO warns about interpreting preprints, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. I have never argued that the preprint in question is not a preprint; please don't put words in my mouth. I do argue, however that the WHO brief is not a preprint, and I'm baffled that you seem to confuse the two sources. Preprints are made available early precisely for other researchers and experts to examine them and reach carefully considered conclusions. We think it's fine for experts to do that; but we forbid Wikipedia editors from doing the same. I fail to see why you're having such a hard time in making sense of the concept. --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, to me, the WHO brief does not "examine" the preprint and "reach carefully considered conclusions" - at least not in the form it was added to the article prior. In the way it was added to the article, it was basically a "reprint" (pardon the word choice here) of the preprint statistic, without including any of the "commentary" offered by the WHO about the limitations of the studies in the (preprint) systematic review. That is what I meant when I was referring to "laundering" the statistic - while yes, using the WHO source for their commentary on the preprint I agree with, using it to source the preprint statistics themselves with no inclusion of the actual secondary source (the WHO statements on them) is shady at best. If the statistic wouldn't be okay on its own sourced to the preprint itself, it should not suddenly become okay to place in the article on its own by sourcing a "copy" of that statistic in another source. The commentary is a different story, and I apologize for not realizing the distinction you were making. Hopefully I explained better now... I'm going to rest from my week now, apologies for misunderstanding. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've had problems in the past with editors deciding that some (apparently good) sources didn't "really" have enough evidence behind a claim, and therefore the editor was overruling the source. There's a fine line between the Wikipedia:Editorial discretion we have to allow volunteers (e.g., I personally refuse to add a source that I believe is flawed in some way) and prohibited types of original research (e.g., I refuse to let others cite that source, because I analyzed the source and decided, out of my own understanding, that it's flawed).
That said, if we include that, it's probably a good idea to hedge the statement significantly: "According to a single, preliminary report cited by the WHO", etc.. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that if the WHO says something in their voice, then they are the authority being cited (not whatever specific source they might cite). Doesn't the WHO's decision to use a particular estimated rate carry more weight than our perception of the source they cite? — soupvector (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't classify the WHO statement as original research. We need to consider whether it meets this threshold in WP:MEDRS (emphasis added):
Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs.
So the question is not whether the number will be adjusted in the future or not, or whether the source of the number is one (or multiple) preprint studies. It's whether the number as presented by the WHO in the cited source is the current scientific consensus. I think the addition of context around the number as suggested by RexxS would to a fine job of presenting the data for what it is, current consensus on the range of the number that doesn't yet have a more accurate estimate. Particularly the focus around the systemic review the WHO cited: studies which estimated 6-41% IFR, with the pooled estimate being 12-20%. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakkster Man: it's only original research when we impose our own interpretation of a source, of course. If the WHO says one set of results are more trustworthy than another set of results, then it's fine for us to report that judgement. What I worry about is when an editor decides for themselves that one set of results discussed in a secondary source is more reliable than another set of results discussed in the secondary source, without any indication from the secondary source. That would be an instance of WP:OR. I hope that makes my comment clearer. --RexxS (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's more clear and I understand what you're saying. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender differences

The summary in Coronavirus disease 2019 § Sex differences seems to contradict Gendered impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current section summary reports that "Later reviews in June 2020 indicated that there is no significant difference in susceptibility or in CFR between genders." The breakout article claims there are differences.

To avoid content duplication and contradictory claims, I'd like to replace the summary with a transcluded copy of the breakout intro paragraph. However, it looks like it's in bad need of an update. It includes the text, "From a purely medical perspective: mortality due to COVID-19 is significantly higher in men..." Anyone up to the challenge? - Wikmoz (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs an update. I'd rather not transclude anything here. I think we'd be better off just making the updates in both places.
It is possible for both of these statements to be true: there is no significant difference in susceptibility on the basis of sex, and significantly more men die. The first says that being biologically male isn't the problem (e.g., a male non-smoker has the same risk as a female non-smoker). The second acknolwedges that men smoke more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should way include 3.1% (= total # deaths / total # confirmed cases) in the infobox?

I would argue that it's not a good idea to include this percentage (total # deaths / total # confirmed cases) in the infobox, for two main reasons:

  1. It's not a useful number, since testing rates vary significantly by region, the number of non-severe cases that go unreported or unconfirmed may be high in some areas and low in others; computing this ratio necessarily treats non-comparable data as if it were comparable.
  2. It's easy to misinterpret. I still encounter people who believe that the infection fatality rate is over 3%, but this is not what the '3.1%' presented here actually means.

It should be sufficient to just display the number of confirmed cases and the number of deaths. Including the '3.1%' in such a prominent position on this page could create a false impression of this ratio's significance or meaning.

Any good reason to include the percentage? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case Fatality Ratio is a valid number, but deserves being placed in proper context (presumably in Coronavirus disease 2019#Epidemiology). And just as importantly, CFR is only validly calculated using cases where the result is known, have to compare recoveries and fatalities without including those who are still sick. If we add it, it should be sourced from a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (possibly accompanied by date of calculation), rather than community calculated. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19&oldid=979759645"