Talk:2019 novel coronavirus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Caption on the image[edit]

@Hemiauchenia: the image may be "very clearly a computer generated 3d render" to you, but as I mentioned here and at WP:ERRORS, the source of the image calls it an illustration, and does not provide further information on how it was produced. Unless you have a source saying the image was produced by a computer, we should stick with the verifiable facts. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point, It's like saying we shouldn't say a picture of the moon is of the moon unless it is explicitly stated by the source. Saying that we can't know how the image is produced is silly, and merely shows your ignorance of computer graphics. It is clearly a 3d model of the virus (I. e. a computer graphic), with lighting, shading and blur effects, which by definition makes it a render. This isn't something that could be produced by any other method. I think that calling it an illustration is clearer and I don't disagree with the change, but your logic that we can't know it's a render is off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of the infobox and the treachery of images, I'm wondering if it's about time to remove the picture of China ("Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the only recorded outbreak"). It's true that Wuhan is still the epicenter of the outbreak, but the outbreak is also global at this point, and the map may be one of the factors that is prompting the insertion of too much information on the specific outbreak into this article on the virus. Still, I'm not sure, so would like to hear other opinions on this. Dekimasuよ! 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The outbreak is still largely confined to china and Hubei province, there isn't really significant human to human transmission outside China yet, so it should remain as is currently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Where the outbreak happens to be taking place is not really germane to a description of the virus, though, is it? Unless it is necessary context for discussing the natural reservoir. Dekimasuよ! 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please consider adding some brief function descriptions for the various parts shown in the (2nd) cross-sectional image. It would be great if those functions could also be linked to relevant wikipages. Jahibadkaret (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Epidemiologist interview[edit]

Yug has twice added the following text to the section on virus research: "Zhejiang University's renowned epidemiologist Li Lanjuan has announced a possible timeline of few months to produce production and test a vaccine. Patients samples allowed researchers to isolate the virus strain, from which 4 weeks are needed to create vaccine strains, 2 weeks to test these, 6 weeks for official approval.[1]"

I have removed the addition, because many well-known doctors have made comments about vaccine research in regards to 2019-nCoV, and it is unclear why we should focus on this single researcher's opinion here. The YouTube clip cited does not say that Li Lanjuan or the university is directly involved in any vaccine development. It only explains one possible timeline and is not really an "announcement" (Yug did add "possible" in the second addition). I am moving the discussion to talk to try to resolve this; other opinions welcome. Dekimasuよ! 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi Dekinasu, I understand your concerns, yet I see value in this citation, be it by the fact it's a leading Chinese virologist, still in charge at Zhejiang University, and because this citation state the details of a timeline, the vaccine's substeps. Positive inclusion in my opinion. Yug (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu and Yug!

The addition that was removed should, I believe, be reinstated as soon as there is another source of an interview with another epidemiologist. If there is already an alternate source of relevant and scientic information, I don't see the point of removing it or discussing it either. Ty! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The less speculation about vaccine research, the better. All that can be said by now is that the initial antigen purifications are proceeding far better than with SARS - basically all vaccine workgroups can be supplied in abundance, so vaccine development can proceed at good speed. But this does not mean a vaccine for public use is anywhere close. An experimental therapeutic vaccine for emergency trials in already-infected patients may be ready out in less than a month if research proceeds at present speed, but this is not the same as a tested and safe vaccine for mass preventive inoculation. The latter is more limited by the time and resources required to set up a production and distribution chain, i.e. a problem of economics and logistics that is mostly outside the scope of biomedical research.
So for some time we will be getting different "expert opinions" most of which will be equally true despite vastly contradicting, because they define "vaccine" differently. And as most media reports are not likely to go into details in that regard, they're worthless (no robust information) or counterproductive (resulting in incomplete information appearing as self-contradict) as sources.
What to do? Document key steps in vaccine research as they occur, but refrain from using media speculation about future timeframes. That way, we can give clear, accurate and reliable information. 2001:4DD1:5030:0:6834:8598:D1E5:CC5E (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Need to be careful what "studies" we allow in the article[edit]

Before adding any research papers to the main article, please review

and make sure the research is sound. Research, both solid and not so solid, is moving very fast. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I consider it very inappropriate to troll this otherwise relevant discussion so blatantly. A reminder to vet your sources from no less than BuzzFeed? Give me a break! (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It's actually a BuzzFeed News story not Buzzfeed. BuzzFeed News, unlikely BuzzFeed is an RS (WP:Perennial sources) so they should not be conflated. I would still urge great caution with them on science matters, however the general advice in this case seems sound and no one is proposing adding them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have not seen one reference to the pangolin story added here yet. On one hand, this is a positive development. On the other hand, I feel like it might be better to get ahead of any overconfident additions by adding a reference to the "intermediate host cannot be ruled out" sentence in the lede—that is, pointing out that the pangolin claims are from news stories and press releases, not the unpublished study that is supposed to have been referenced in them. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Another example is scientific correspondence. We have let a few of these through so far, but we need to be aware that something like this does not serve as evidence of ocular transmission, only suggests it as a topic for further study, and being sourced to The Lancet doesn't mean it gets a free pass as fact. Dekimasuよ! 03:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents[edit]

Can someone add the information please?

We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for 2019-nCoV, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.

-- (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been removed from the article repeatedly, not least because the review does not include any studies at all on this particular coronavirus. The WHO also writes "From previous analysis, we know coronaviruses do not survive long on objects" (Myth busters). As before, I suggest bringing this up at Talk:Coronavirus if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 15:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


People's thought on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

What information does it convey? Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I had the same question. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This electron microscope image has also been added to the CDC site recently. Dekimasuよ! 08:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
That's an ultrathin section. Some readers might have difficulty understanding the image. (Not a reason in itself for not using it of course). Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Doc James: I'd say "no" on the animation unless it can be shown that the virus spins and moves as rapidly as in the animation. As other's asked "What information does it convey?" As it is, images such as File:2019-nCoV-CDC-23312 without background.png would be better if they included an explanation of what the various colored bits are and that the colors are only for display purposes. A virus is smaller than a wavelength of visible light and thus it, and its parts, do not have visible colors. I like File:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg as it shows what the pieces are though I would have preferred if it also included a ruler. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
It clearly shows that it is round. But no strong feeling either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI on naming[edit]

COVID-19: a disease caused by the 2019-nCoV

2019-nCoV: a new coronavirus first identified by health authorities in Wuhan, thought to derive from pangolins and ultimately bats

The outbreak that's currently taking place should be called "2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic" no matter how clumsy that sounds,similar to the 2009 flu pandemic (which was known at the time as Swine Flu), with redirects from the numerous nicknames given to the epidemic. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I basically agree with this assessment. We are still waiting on the name for the virus from ICTV. Dekimasuよ! 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A new discussion about move to COVID-19[edit]

I'm notifying you about a new discussion over at the 2019-nCov acute respiratory disease talk page about moving it to the COVID-19 page that might be of interest to you.

935690edits (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of an ongoing split discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus[edit]

There is a discussion to split SARS CoV into Sars 1 and the Sars species, which would be a container for this article. Discussion over at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talkcontribs) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2020[edit]

2019 novel coronavirusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 – This is the official name given by the WHO, and "novel coronavirus" was just a placeholder name until an official name could be determined. Now that the official name has been decided upon as "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2", the article should be moved. Lutein678 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per official name. robertsky (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support with comment this RM similar with my requested move which involve all article with "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. But i support for only single move request because per official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a ongoing discussion whether to split Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus into a SARS-CoV-1 article. If that is done, this should be SARS-CoV-2 for reciprocity. Sleath56 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Evidence is required, still. More than simple supports and opposes, what is needed if the page is to be moved is evidence that fits WP:NAMECHANGES and doesn't simply rely upon the idea that one or another title is official. We do not necessarily change page titles because official titles have changed. Instead, we reflect how common usage has adapted after the official name changes. Without any evidence of common usage, it is unlikely that this has enough policy/guideline support to pass. Please provide evidence of usage in reliable, secondary sources if you would like to see this move go through (not primary sources like the WHO). What is being used in stories from the BBC, The New York Times, the South China Morning Post, etc. since the WHO changed the name officially? We follow sources, not precede them. Dekimasuよ! 05:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support With caveat that there's an article out as of yesterday about how there's disagreement over this name in the science community which makes me more hesitant: "Coronavirus latest: Scientists clash over virus name". Nature. 2020-02-13. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00154-w. It's unfortunate we've had so much trouble over naming for this one. (Both this article, and the scientific community at large!) Mvolz (talk)
  • Strong Support - there are no WP:COMMONNAME because there are multiple names being used to casually refer to the epidemic. Wikipedia is imposing a title onto society by picking names from the causal ones, whereas the official name has been "imposed" onto society anyway. Tsukide (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. There was the same discussion three days ago on this page, involving this and other related articles, with no-consensus outcome. One cannot propose the same move requests again and again until they are accepted. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this is the same request. The structure and timing of the previous request were both suboptimal, and it is possible that we can achieve consensus for a new title in this discussion. I would like to ask for a temporary moratorium on move requests if that does not take place. (Note that the previous close is also under Wikipedia:Move review due to objections that it should not have been closed early. I would say we should let one more go all the way through and get a real close for the first time since the introduction of a new "official" name.) Dekimasuよ! 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This proposal is very likely to affect the "main" COVID-19 pages move proposals, presently under a de facto moratorium, but differs because it deals with a very specific restricted topic and a single article. A discussion on one specific, well-defined narrow topic is more likely to converge than one on a wider more complex topic. The present content of this move proposal is an example: we're presently close to WP:SNOW. Boud (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I tell you to Oppose renaming the article to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 because WP:COMMONNAME is applied to this article. (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment "Novel coronavirus" literally means 'new coronavirus' and is intended to be a placeholder name until the WHO reached a consensus regarding the official name. Now that it has been officially determined, the article should be moved.Lutein678 (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I support this comment basically. The COMMONNAME is basically "novel coronavirus" or "new coronavirus" or just "coronavirus" which is very stupid for an encyclopedia. Tsukide (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, we do not rely simply upon WP:OFFICIAL names. The uptake of the official name is important. As far as the possibility that the common name is "coronavirus", that would lead us to a variety of ways of disambiguating the title for precision since there are also other things called "coronavirus". One natural disambiguation for "coronavirus" is the current title. But this conversation can all be avoided if evidence is provided that the new names are being used in reliable, independent secondary sources. Dekimasuよ! 10:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No No evidence of widespread use in sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - the previous RM was closed with the suggestion not to start new RMs until 20 Feb at the earliest and, although it was a non-admin closure, that moratorium was sound and should be honoured. An uninvolved admin should close this now.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - That is the official name of the virus. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is now the official name, and there is no generally accepted WP:COMMONNAME to use as an alternative. -- The Anome (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is evidence provided above that the "official name" is not generally recognized yet either, however. To posit that the official name should be used in the absence of a generally accepted common name requires that we recognize the authority of one particular body to establish an official name. In practice we may do this sometimes, but in theory we don't, so another type of argument might be preferable. Dekimasuよ! 12:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • WARNING For all administrator and editors, this request move, even with official name recognized by many institution, need to reach consensus to all English Wikipedia community because there are many aspect that the official name does not widely accepted by English Wikipedia community despite being accepted on other languages community. For this request move, please find evidence from many source around the world, including non-english source that use the official names like (SARS-CoV-2) because this RM require whole consensus to be reached by Wikipedia community, not just only plenty editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the name be "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2" This name change is really confusing as the disease it causes isn't techically Severe acute respiratory syndrome, but Coronavirus disease 2019. Is COVID-19 a temporary name? Will the disease be renamed into another form of SARS? I'm not really sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that "related" is not used precisely because this strain is not related to the syndrome. The sources do not use "related". Basically, "severe acute respiratory syndrome" is being emptied of its original meaning and applied to this strain. Dekimasuよ! 16:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support. If we cannot rely on International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) to designate the name of the virus, then WHO? *Ba dum tsss* — Hasdi Bravo • 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    "Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the [Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of ICTV] formally recognizes this virus as a sister to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and designates it as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)."
  • Support - the original move to 2019 novel coronavirus was a mistake since it was clearly a temporary name. I would have preferred another more common name - Wuhan coronavirus is clearly the more popular option according to Google Trends [1], but keeping a name that is already obsolete is worse. Hzh (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is not its official name, or rather, there is more than one official name out there. The name announced by WHO is Covid-19.Disease caused by the novel coronavirus officially has a name: Covid-19 and that is the name that was reported in news sources. Per the same source, it had been known provisionally as 2019-nCoV, and we have redirects from that name to this article. We should absolutely not use this cumbersome title, which I have seen virtually nowhere, and we should not change this article's title until science and coverage determine a generally accepted name. Set up redirects until the situation is clear, and keep this name for now. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You misunderstood the news source, Covid-19 is the disease (Covid stands for coronavirus disease), SARS-CoV-2 is the name of the virus -[2]. Hzh (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Exactly! This article from Science Magazine explains the confusion: the name you are proposing is the name of the VIRUS, not the name of the disease. The name of the disease, assigned by WHO, is COVID-19 Or Covid-19. That is the proper name for this article, which should be about the disease, not the virus. And that is the name that is starting to be used, and will be used, by reliable sources and eventually by us. See New York Times -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This proposal is about renaming the article about the virus, not the disease. The disease article is in 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease, a different discussion to move is in the talkpage there. I'm not sure what your point is. Hzh (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I was under the impression that this was about the disease and discovered my mistake just now while looking to see how Wiki handles the names of similar diseases. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Strong Support since now everyone uses it.--Njzjz (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis of the official recommendation that has come into sustained use in online sources over the last several days. Boud (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • はい。 New England Journal of Medicine - title "A Locally Transmitted Case of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Taiwan"; The Conversation - SARS and the new SARS-CoV-2 share ... strong possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will continue; Straits Times - The disease caused by the coronavirus Sars-CoV-2 is now; Live Science image shows SARS-CoV-2 (yellow) ... revealed some of the first images of SARS-CoV-2 ... the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 ... The SARS-COV-2 virus looks similar; (mostly paywalled 'Scrip Informa Pharma Intelligence' - title: "Codagenix-Serum Join Fray To Develop SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine"; Nature - the risk of SARS-CoV-2 spreading ... risk of importing SARS-CoV-2 on the basis ... model of SARS-CoV-2's international spread ... capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2 in people ... concerns that SARS-CoV-2 could spread ... the risk of SARS-CoV-2 spreading ... could diagnose SARS-CoV-2, and. Boud (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ありがとうございます。Thanks, this is very helpful. Do you think it's being used in a preponderance of current sources? Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support and IAR to close early consensus is to move to the "official" names. Unlike the related move discussion/RfC, this one has clear consensus. --Almaty (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per my previous discussion comments. BlackholeWA (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the official name for this virus--that's a strong enough reason to why this page should be renamed as above Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 04:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment because there seems to clear consensus about this RM, this time to close this RM and move that article into the official name, unlike the 11 Feb RM, which has no consensus because that RM involve all articles with "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name. For all articles which contain "Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" name such as Timeline, misinformation, Evacuations related to xxxx, these RM should be requested at the single talk page on Wuhan coronavirus outbreak talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • We do not usually determine consensus for a move request in one day. This is considered a controversial request and is supposed to go for a week. I understand wanting to go faster, but one day is probably not a good idea. Not everyone edits Wikipedia every day, new evidence can be presented over the course of a discussion, and most importantly it is not clear that the discussion has run its course. In particular, the discussion here is still primarily characterized by comments that refer to an official name, which is not how we choose titles, so a move request closer would discount comments based upon that reasoning. See WP:RMCI#Determining consensus and WP:OFFICIAL#Rationale. Dekimasuよ! 05:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ladies and Gentlemen: This virus has at least three official names, so let's use some WP common sense to be constructive:
1) Use the FIRST one - which is the most commonly known at the moment - for this article.
2) Add a NAMEING section to the article, giving the dates and citations for when each one was introduced.
3) Add an AKA section underneith the first name including the others.
This should cross reference all possible searches without umpteen disambiguation pages, explain the confusion to anyone interested, and give a fair airing for everyone's choice - unless you all want to open a DISCUSSION page as well! (IMHO "SARS-2" is confusing.) Cheers! Shir-El too 06:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The current title doesn't really meet WP:COMMONNAME. We're talking about going from the official temporary name to the official permanent name. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:CONSISTENT with Severe acute respiratory syndrome and nom. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support The originally name was a temporary name. Correct names should be used. Garo (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as per ICTV. All other names are provisional. --Nessie (📥) 14:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, as I had similarly proposed in the previous move discussion, per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NCMED. We have articles like SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV which do not use the abbreviations as the article titles so per WP:CONSISTENT, this should follow likewise. Secondly, WP:NCMED as a guideline advocates a move. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I was in the "support but wait" group when a similar RM was made a few days ago. Given the technical content, I think WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is a lower concern. 90% of non-medical readers are going to be looking for the content contained in the COVID-19 disease and outbreak topics. Those in the medical community will recognize SARS-CoV-2. We should keep the current name as an also known as in the lead. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Why do we even have a discussion here? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles clearly says that it should be named per WHO. (talk/contribs) 19:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom and above. I don't see any reason to stick with its provisional name. I also invite everyone to participate with the discussion regarding the proposed split of Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus into two more articles here. –hueman1 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose We like official names. But proposed species name "SARS-CoV-2" has not been peer reviewed yet, and there is some dispute in the scientific literature on the species. Nor has the CDC yet recognized any non-provisional designation, and still refers to it as the "2019 novel coronavirus" in its most recent communications. Renaming the widely-known "2019 novel coronavirus" to the tentative and incompletely adopted "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" will cause confusion. Wikipedia should follow consensus from the rear, not set it. Wait for peer-review and consensus, then rename.—wing gundam 22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • (Also the Manual of Style (cited above) only defers to WHO or ICD-10 for disease names like COVID-19, not species names, as is this article.)—wing gundam 22:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Please read the full text of the CDC source you linked, not only the first line. The introduction explains the background of a novel (new) coronavirus that was first detected in Wuhan City, which is in the following text named SARS-COV2. The group responsible for naming it has named it Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and everyone is in agreement that it is not considered the same species as Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The string "2019 novel coronavirus" occurs only once in the present version of the US CDC link, and that's in the caption of the figure, not the main text; and the string "SARS-CoV2" (with the second hyphen missing) occurs four times. So the US CDC is switching to the formal name (it just didn't update the figure caption, and it missed the second hyphen). Boud (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Ythlev (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment: an uninvolved admin should apply WP:SNOW - there is an overwhelming consensus here. Boud (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Yes, per reasons stated TWICE. Do it. Do it naaawwwwwuuggghh!!! — Hasdi Bravo • 15:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Per others. Patriccck (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I was considering a snow close of this, but the instructions say I have a COI where previously I supported a future use of this name. So I will support use of the full name in this request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2019 novel coronavirus is a placeholder name. We can't call it that forever, because at some point it won't be novel anymore. If we'll have to make the change at some point, why not do it now? YttriumShrew (talk) 8:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Current name was a placeholder and moving to it was probably a mistake. We have a new name, the new name has caught in expert sources, and people referring to it shorthand as "coronavirus" in non-expert sources doesn't form a meaningful argument against (people refer to a lot of things that are the most newsworthy of their kind by such shorthand, e.g. "influenza" as "the flu" or "Donald Trump" as "Trump"). I'm not going to IAR myself, but I'd support it. Magic9mushroom (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the new virus. It must match the name given. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

New images[edit]

There are several new images of the virus available at this Flickr account (Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)). I think they could be useful. They are from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dekimasuよ! 16:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

New phylogenetic analysis out (COI)[edit] Report 5: Phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics (J-IDEA) Imperial College London Erik Volz1 , Marc Baguelin, Sangeeta Bhatia, Adhiratha Boonyasiri, Anne Cori, Zulma Cucunubá, Gina CuomoDannenburg, Christl A. Donnelly, Ilaria Dorigatti, Rich FitzJohn, Han Fu, Katy Gaythorpe, Azra Ghani, Arran Hamlet, Wes Hinsley, Natsuko Imai, Daniel Laydon, Gemma Nedjati-Gilani, Lucy Okell, Steven Riley, Sabine van Elsland, Haowei Wang, Yuanrong Wang, Xiaoyue Xi, Neil M. Ferguson

COI - spouse is TFA, also I helped a tiny bit with figure 1 :)

Key points: Time of origin is early December ("We estimate the TMRCA to be on 5 December 2019 (95% CI: 6 November - 13 December 2019)"). Doubling time ~ 7 days, in line with several other previously published estimates. Estimates of the total number of infected from the limited data were still too unstable to be reliable. Mvolz (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we are getting to the point where we are able to shift toward published sources rather than relying to a large extent on preprints. As far as the first key point, it is good that this is consistent with what we already have in the article. For the others, I'm not sure yet where they would be added, but are there plans for this to be published? Dekimasuよ! 06:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia articels differ[edit]

says different things from this article - can the 2 be looked at so they are consistent with each other. AS they are both protected it is not possible to easily edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I found one inconsistency and fixed it. The numbers are not up to date there, but it has an "as of" caveat. If there is something else, please let us know. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus life cycle[edit]

Would anybody help for the redaction of a paragraph on the full life cycle of the virus ?

The virus has a tiny lipid bilayer...
The virus has a tiny lipid bilayer where the membrane and enveloppe proteins are anchored as well as the spike protein. Inside there is the nucleocapsid: a protein binded to (and protecting) the long one strand (30000 nucleotides) RNA genome. The capsid+lipid membrane+protein envelope makes the virus resistant oustide and inside the body.
The (RBD part of the) spike protein on the surface of the virus binds to the ACE2 receptor of lung epithelial cells, some part binds to the neighbor TMPRSS2 protease which does priming (cleavage and reorganization).
The S1/S2 spike protein is now ready for membrane fusion: the viral membrane merges with the cell lipid membrane.
The uncoated nucleocapsid passes into the cytoplasm where the genome is released.
The cell's small ribosomal subunit (40S) binds to the genome 5' beginning and the large 60s ribosome assembles around it and starts the translation of the first 2/3 of the genome (called the replicase gene) into two overlapping large polyproteins, both containing the main protease Mpro which detaches and cleaves the polyproteins at 5 sites. There are two other proteases PL1, PL2 inside the polyproteins which does more cleavages, thus obtaining the 16 proteins needed for cell hijacking and replication.
The last 1/3 of the genome is translated mainly into the structural proteins (the proteins that assemble into the new virions).
Part of the 16 proteins the most important is the viral replicase transcriptase complex (RTC) which contains the RNA dependent polymerase which transcripts the genome into a full (-) RNA strands which then serves itself for the transcription of the new virions' genome.
The virion genomes and structural proteins accumulate and are assembled into the vesicles of Golgi / secretory pathway. Finally they are released outside of the cell, into the interstitial fluid and go infecting other cells. Some of them can attain the lymph and trigger immune response. A non-adapted immune response can trigger cell death and make some holes into the vascular walls which provokes lung damages and releasing of virions into the blood: septic shock, cytokine storm. The virions are filtered by the kidneys where they might start a new infection and provoke multiple organ failure.
Source: chapter II and III of Molecular Biology of the SARS-Coronavirus plus a few articles.

Reuns (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A few comments: first, if any of this is to be added, it needs to be cited more precisely. And from what I can tell of the book that's being used to make the description, everything that's written applies to the older SARS-CoV strain. It's possible (or likely) that the new strain functions in the same way, but I don't think we can use this cite from years ago to explain the life cycle of the strain that was discovered recently. We need to avoid synthesizing information or adding original research. Maybe some of this would be more in place at the main Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus article, after that is split, or at Coronavirus. Dekimasuよ! 08:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried to follow your advice and I have rewritten everything, trying to remove all the Sars-specific stuffs and what I'm not sure about. It required a lot of work because it is far from being my specialty, since I was happy of the result I added it to the article. My goal was to introduce in simple words that highly mysterious part of the infection. Don't be afraid to correct what deserves to be. Also I think it would be worth adding a paragraph on the pathogenesis of such lung damaging coronavirus, the immune protection and response, what happens between two cells infection, how the infection evolves from one organ to the other, from the contagion to the viral clearance or death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuns (talkcontribs)
Updated version (refunded for discussion)

Coronavirus life cycle

Although the novel coronavirus appeared recently, its genome organization and life cycle is similar to Sars-Cov and other coronaviruses.[1] [2]

Cell reptor attachment and membrane fusion

The virus has a tiny lipid bilayer where the membrane (M), enveloppe (E) and spike (S) proteins are anchored. Inside there is the nucleocapsid, multiple copies of the (N) protein serving as a shell for the long one-strand (30000 nucleotides) RNA genome. The capsid, membrane and protein envelope make the virus resistant oustide and inside the body.

The main exposed active site is the (S) protein. Its receptor binding domain (RBD) recognizes and attaches to the ACE2 receptor (of lung epithelial cells). It is proposed [3] that an interaction with the near TMPRSS2 protease does priming (cleavage and reorganization). The S proteins are now ready for membrane fusion, they insert a harpin into the cell lipid membrane and bending their spatial structure they achieve a merging of the viral and cell membrane. When overexpressed inside the infected cell the S protein may be secretored on the surface of the cell's membrane which will provoke a membrane fusion with the neighboring cells.

Release of the genome, recruitment of ribosome, translation of the replicase gene

The uncoated nucleocapsid passes into the cytoplasm where the viral genome is released. This genome is intepreted as a messenger RNA by the cell's ribosomes which effects in the translation of 2/3 of the genome into large overlapping polyproteins. They contain a few proteases which detach and cleave the polyproteins at various sites, obtaining about 15 proteins needed for cell hijacking and replication.


Among them there is the replicase complex containing various analogs of naturally occuring enzymes, among which there is a RNA replicase which achieves from the full length genome (and the nucleotides dissolved in the cytosol) the synthesis of various size complementary (-)RNA followed by the transcription to the corresponding mRNAs. Occasionally the full-length negative then positive RNA strand is synthesized to become the genome of the new virions.

The various smaller mRNAs correspond to the last third of the virus genome and are translated (by ribosomes) mainly into the structural proteins that will become part of the numerous new virions.

Assembly of the virions inside the endoplasmic reticulum

Those transcriptions and protein expressions tend to be localized inside the endoplasmic reticulum. The proteins and the capsid move along the secretory pathway into the Golgi intermediate compartment. There, the M proteins direct most protein-protein interactions required for assembly of the virion.

Release of the virions through secretory vesicles exocytosis

Hello Reuns, I appreciate your work on this and I want to point out that I do find it informative. I have been trying to figure out how to discuss things like the viral components in the article text, as opposed to simply mentioning them in figures. However, I still do not think this material is suitable for inclusion in the article at this time. It would be great if we had enough knowledge about this virus to be able to make clear statements about its life cycle with conviction, and I do agree with you that if we were able to do so it would be more than appropriate material for the article. However, this is still not cited to an extent that we can add it to the article. This is not because of any shortcomings in your writing or editing, but because no one has released reliable sources that specifically deal with the life cycle of this virus yet. In other words, it's not possible to verify that what you've written here is accurate, because the texts you're citing predate the advent of this virus. We can guess that the life cycle is the same as in other coronaviruses that were mentioned in those texts, but as I wrote above, we would be on more solid ground doing so in the article Coronavirus (or something similar) rather than here. We simply have to wait for the sources in order to add this type of information in order to avoid synthesizing things that aren't in the sources or engaging in our own original research. Dekimasuよ! 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Not just to Reuns, but to everyone: are there individual statements in research on SARS-CoV-2/2019-nCoV that can be used to support individual parts of the section? Dekimasuよ! 11:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)