Talk:COVID-19/Archive 7

COVID-19/Archive 7
COVID-19/Archive 7
	Symptoms of COVID-19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request to Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the righthand side of the page, in the facts box Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): delete "Wuhan coronavirus, Wuhan virus, Wuhan pneumonia,[2][3] Wuhan flu[4]"

The reason is because this is racist and can cause injustice and descrimination to not only Chinese but also Asians. GoldenPotatis (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: I don't think it is wise to remove those terms without consensus. I would suggest creating another thread on this talk page proposing your changes and opening up a request for comment when (or if) necessary. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yah it needs editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree there should be an RfC for this though I also agree such terms should be avoided (that was a significant consideration in the decision to name the disease COVID-19 and the virus SARS-CoV-2, respectively). We say this in our own terminology section so it does seem like an internal contradiction. Th OP appears to be a new editor though and may need some guidance about how to start an RFC, LuK3. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The whole "synonyms"/"other names" section should probably be removed for now. See comments at: Remove "Other names" section infobox. --Tsavage (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove "Other names" section infobox

See: Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

The "Other names" section in the sidebar box is unnecessary, and arbitrary. It amounts to news reporting. "Other names" according to what criteria? The article title, "Coronavirus disease 2019", and the infobox title, "Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)", make it abundantly clear what the article refers to. Over time, a true common name may emerge, like Ebola, West Nile, Lyme, but at this point, there isn't good sourcing for that. Naming can be discussed in the article body until then. --Tsavage (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

ADDED: The "Other names" content isn't present in the article itself. Infoboxes should summarize article content, and not highlight trivial details, per Help:Infobox. --Tsavage (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The synonyms section is a standard part of this infobox (Template:Infobox medical condition). Surely each name needs good references showing that it is indeed widely used (I just removed an unsourced one myself), but given the amount of attention this disease has received already, "too new" isn't a very convincing argument at this point. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB "Too new" isn't the argument, reliable sourcing is. The problem is with how it's determined if a name is a "synonym". Any sort of mention in a generally reliable source? What about "China virus" or "Chinese virus"? That's frequently mentioned in media that's commonly regarded as reliable on WP, by a big margin. And there's a disambiguation page for it. Tsavage (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Tsavage — What reliable media refer to it as that? I haven't seen anything from reliable sources. Carl Fredrik^talk 18:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF – It depends on what we consider sufficient sourcing for synonyms. The WHO has official naming, so that seems reliable (and is in the article). Does simply being mentioned in what we consider a reliable news source suffice? In the infobox, "Wuhan pneumonia" is cited to TIME (one headline mention) and Foreign Policy (headline and one body mention) magazines, no different than the BBC's use of "China virus", or prominent science journal Nature's use. Also, the infobox should be abstracted from the article, and none of this is discussed there. --Tsavage (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Tsavage — Yes, reliable sources mentioning a name is enough, and frankly as there are hundreds or even thousands of those sources calling it "Wuhan coronavirus" or "Wuhan pneumonia", including technical sources, and some from governmental health bodies — it makes no difference for those terms. However, it shouldn't be enough that a reliable sources remarks that some people are using a term politically, such as with "China virus". You do have a point when showing those old January articles, but they do seem to represent a small minority even at the time they were written and I get the sense they don't consider "China virus" to be a proper name, but rather to be pointing out that it is spreading in Chinese, much like "Tsavage-virus" could refer to a bug you personally had. It might therefor beWP:UNDUE to include "China virus", however I don't really have any feelings either which way. Carl Fredrik^talk 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

When I first visited the page, the Other Names section stood out to me as being uncalled for: I believe the names such as "Wuhan Pneumonia" (which are in the current Other Names section) are inappropriate. I updated it without being aware of the discussion here. CFCF undid my edits, and I think his/her points are not valid.

The WHO has a policy for naming new diseases, https://www.who.int/topics/infectious_diseases/naming-new-diseases/en/ which mentions: "If an inappropriate name is released or used or if a disease remains unnamed, WHO, the agency responsible for global public health events, may issue an interim namefor the diseases and recommend its use, so that inappropriate names do not become established." Further down they have a list "Disease names may NOT include" -- "Geographic locations: Cities, countries, regions, continents" The reason for that is to avoid stigmatizing. For example the "time" itself quotes at

https://time.com/5782284/who-name-coronavirus-covid-19/

If the new name had included a reference to Wuhan it would put a “tremendous stigmatization on the people of Wuhan who are the victims” of the disease, Wendy Parmet, a law professor at Northeastern University and public health expert, tells TIME. “People tend to think of the disease as belonging to, as being a characteristic of some group of people associated with the place name, which can be really stigmatizing,” Parmet says. “To be thought of as a hole of disease is not going to be productive. It encourages the next city not to come forward, not to report a disease if your city is labeled as the disease.”

I believe the current Other Names section contributes to this stigmatization. So this is not about "sufficient sourcing" this is about avoiding stigmatization.

So I suggest to reapply my removal. Stephanwehner (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree "I believe the names such as "Wuhan Pneumonia" (which are in the current Other Names section) are inappropriate." That's just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT excuse. Wikipedia might and will contain offensive material and suppressing it just because they are deemed as "inappropriate" is just a form of censorship. Editors above has given quite reliable sources using the term "Wuhan pneumonia" etc. WHO can have its own guidelines to name a disease, but we cannot overlook wide-spread media use of these synonyms to COVID-19. There is no guideline that states we should be against or for wording that might be deemed as stigmatizing by a group of people. This is an encyclopedia, and we should be presenting existing information without the influence of our societal norms.

Also want to add that you shouldn't be doing major changes without a "consensus" being formed.--Gogolplex (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: Why have you reverted my edits as the discussion is still going?--Gogolplex (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding further to the above, I think just because wikipedia has a "Synonym" (Other Names) functionality doesn't mean one has to go out and search for anything that may be covered. In this case some misguided people are using the wrong term. It is best to ignore those (see stigmating problem above).

Who are the wikipedians who want to keep the stigmatizing terms? I'm not seeing arguments beyond that they found some quotable usage -- which appears not convincing in this case.

Stephanwehner (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the entries again, with comment, Removing the "disputed," and offensive names in the Synonyms section. The Talk page shows no significant reasons to keep it, and shows important reasons for removal.

Please explain reasons to keep those entries, before re-adding.

Stephanwehner (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Agree fwiw. It seems fairly obvious to me that these stigmatizing synonyms should not be used here. Until we achieve explicit consensus on this highly sensitive issue, it's prudent to keep them excluded. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be kept in its original form, which contains Wuhan pneumonia, as there isn't a consensus yet? This was literally an edit request and right now the section is deleted as two people wanted to censor the synonym.--Gogolplex (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, Gogo, the onus is on the one who wants to introduce/add original material into a given article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That's just not true. And beyond that, it was removed from the article, in spite of reliable sources. Carl Fredrik^talk 18:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Carl, there are countless examples where it's true that the onus is on the one introducing new material to justify its inclusion in an article. There is ample precedent for that. You know that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Does not belong in the first sentence of the text but belongs in the infobox as these are still names even though incorrect names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

They are not "incorrect names", Doc James. They are alternative names. These names indicate the place of origin, which may be useful for those speakers wishing to emphasize the conditions prevalent in the place in which the virus came into existence. I agree "Does not belong in the first sentence of the text but belongs in the infobox". Stephanwehner—you are saying "In this case some misguided people are using the wrong term." You don't determine who is "misguided". Time (magazine) is a reliable source. It writes "The Wuhan Pneumonia Crisis Highlights the Danger in China's Opaque Way of Doing Things". Similarly Foreign Policy is a reliable source and it writes "China Deserves Some Credit for Its Handling of the Wuhan Pneumonia". I would contend that these reliable sources are not "misguided". Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well currently incorrect names. We have lots of those in medicine such as Mongolian idiocy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Context would matter. These days I often have to think whether to write "coronavirus", "Covid 19", or just "Covid". If I were especially interested in referencing the arrangements of animals that is thought to have given rise to the virus ravaging the world, I may chose a term of reference that includes a name of a geographical location. And to respond further to Stephanwehner and others—including the WHO—I don't think this is necessarily "stigmatizing". I have nothing against Chinese people and I am open to cultural norms other than the ones I am steeped in. But it is suspected that it is the "wet markets" or certain arrangements within these markets that gave rise to this present pandemic. That is hardly something to be elided over by notions of "stigmatization" which I think are generally not applicable. In short, I favor the inclusion in the Infobox of these other names for the disease that do include reference to place of origin. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia should be a source of information and as such capturing info on the alternative names of the virus. There's nothing inherently racist or stigmatizing about the names pointing to the origin of the virus, this is a notion that some people have developed in the West these days. In fact, it's a part of the unfolding story and investigation of its origin and mutation. Berehinia (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

folic acid Ghamdan kadasi (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SHOCK and relevant policies

It doesn't matter that it's being perceived as offensive — as has been stated, lots of things are offensive that are included on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is WP:Shock — which quite clearly isn't applicable, because it isn't written or placed out in the article in such a way to intentionally offend anyone.
The names were used in the early literature, and widely so — as such there are countless sources we could use to verify them; and two that are being used are totally arbitrary. This isn't about being "prudent" — it's about documenting the situation in a neutral and unbiased way.
The questions to be asked — when the name are included in a sidenote for relevance are:

1) Will it be relevant for readers in 100 years from now to know what the news sources said early on in the outbreak?

(Clear Yes)

and

2) Are we including it for the purpose of offending someone?

(Clear No)

It's just not a debate, and frankly the naming/terminology section needs to be expanded to include any controversial aspects (and the non-controversial aspects, such as that it was an unprecedented move by the WHO to offer up a name like it did). Carl Fredrik^talk 18:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF – This isn't a censorship issue, it's an MOS:INFOBOX and common sense issue. The "synonyms/other names" section is currently a few terms that aren't covered in the body of the article. The common sense, MOS approach: cover naming in Terminology, summarize in the infobox. Why is content is being included only in the infobox? Tsavage (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Tsavage — To an extent, yes, but the reason WP:MOS isn't applicable is that it should be in the article. The #Terminology-section needs to detail the early naming conventions, and that really can't be a controversial position. Carl Fredrik^talk 15:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

CFCF - There is always a way to include reliably sourced, neutrally-presented, relevant information in an article. Otherwise, it shouldn't be in any part of an article. --Tsavage (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What's the correct spelling, Covid-19 or COVID-19? --Miguelferig (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Both appear to be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot relate to the above objections to removing the synonyms. An encyclopedia is about knowledge. The way the Other Names are presented now is misleading.

So for now here is another suggestion, to add qualifiers like this:

Wuhan pneumonia [2][3] (warning: inappropriate) Wuhan coronavirus (warning: inappropriate)

Then add a new section detailing the reasons why the names are inappropriate. Stephanwehner (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "Wuhan pneumonia" and "Wuhan coronavirus" are "inappropriate", Stephanwehner. Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Full agreement with Bus stop. These alternate names ought to be included in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any substantial arguments? XavierItzm or Bus stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanwehner (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "substantial arguments", Stephanwehner. Please clarify and I'd be glad to respond. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Was originally called "China pneumonia" by the BBC [1]. We used the term back in Jan of 2020.[2]

Yes this are older names... But not sure why the need to remove? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

'Wuhan coronavirus' and 'Wuhan pneumonia'

Is it time to remove 'Wuhan coronavirus' and 'Wuhan pneumonia' from the other names section of the infobox? The article clearly states that the outbreak started in Wuhan, China. It further discusses early names under Terminology. Both citations for 'Wuhan pneumonia' are from January, before the disease had an official name. It just feels dated at this point. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

January was just 4 months ago. To me it does not feel dated. I don't agree we should remove reliably sourced and relevant information. Bus stop (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove: these are not alternate names of the disease going forwards. The infobox is a summary of key information. These are historical terms that should be and are discussed in the article, but are not needed in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Article headlines: "The Wuhan Pneumonia Crisis Highlights the Danger in China's Opaque Way of Doing Things", "China Deserves Some Credit for Its Handling of the Wuhan Pneumonia" Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are from 20 and 14 Jan respectively. That's ancient history in pandemic terms. It's not a current alternate name. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is harder, as some media sources (example [[3]]) are still saying Wuhan coronavirus, but I am not sure of this is the name, or the location.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

That article talks about events in Wuhan. At no point does it use the name "Wuhan coronavirus" or "Wuhan pneumonia". It refers to the disease and virus as just "coronavirus" or, referring to what the doctor featured in the article called it at the time (Dec 2019), "SARS coronavirus". Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think I did knowledge that possibility.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, sources from January and February 2020 are not to be capriciously discarded. If this were the case, you would have to discard all the September 2001 WP:RS that still populate the 9/11 article. Furthermore, it is untrue that certain terms are not currently being used. Witness this source from mid-March 2020:
Fortescue hopes for China virus recovery as steel backlog builds (citation)
Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, this source seems to be referring to China's economic recovery. Even if the source did call the virus the "China virus", it wouldn't support the argument at hand. Further, finding an outlier that still uses one of the terms being discussed doesn't support common name use. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that you say, well, all articles from January are outliers, and all articles from February are outliers, and all articles from March are all outliers, then you are WP:CHERRYPICKING. And again, you can only exclude the January/February articles if you are committed to deleting all the September 2001 WP:RS from the 9/11 article. Sorry, but there has to be a limit to the cherrypicking going on here. XavierItzm (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: Talk:SARS-CoV-2 has a similar discussion. Last I checked, Admin's Noticeboard has a request for an uninvolved admin to decide how to move forward with that. Someone else has also opened a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard. Just thought you'd like to know, so as their resolution may well affect this discussion. Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the terminology section to account for historical usage of "Wuhan coronavirus". The "Wuhan..." (and "China...") names are no longer in common use have have been removed from the alternate names list. - Wikmoz (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the right choice. These are terms no longer in use or relevant as officials names now exist and are in use for the virus and disease. OyMosby (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would definitely remove "Wuhan coronavirus" as this article is about the disease not the virus. User:Jusgtr however just added it again.[4] and so did User:Hari147 [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James I just added in some different terms of the covid virus. I agree you should stick to the term released by the World health Organisation but we cant simply delete any mention of it due to our point of view. --Hari147 (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Hari147 this article is not about the virus it is about the disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James Alright be it disease or virus, whichever. I just dont see a reason why there shouldnt be an etymology section that mentions of how the disease has been referenced. But it is notable that articles referencing any sort or virus or disease do not have an etymology section, which could be a subject of debate, unless it has already been debated --Hari147 (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Hari147 there is and it is Coronavirus_disease_2019#Name Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent and in use

I don't think the discussion to "China virus" is at all comparable. The early term for the disease was "Wuhan coronavirus" and "Wuhan pneumonia", with Chinese government sources using the term as well[6][7]. Taiwanese news media and the Taiwanese government continue to use the terms.Taipei Times, Feb 13 Taiwan News, April 1 January might be a long time within the time frame of the pandemic, but this article is a historical document as well — and then January is very recent. This is very different from "China virus" which is a post-hoc construction which is intentionally xenophobic and was used to cause political upheaval. Carl Fredrik^talk 17:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Except that the term "China virus" is not necessarily "intentionally xenophobic" nor was that term necessarily "used to cause political upheaval". Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an important point. The two sets of terms are often conflated in other discussions. I also agree that we should not shy away from noting that "Wuhan coronavirus" was initially a common term for the disease. To ensure an accurate historical record, I've clearly noted this name in the Terminology section. However, I think including it in the other names list without that context is not constructive. That said, I can see an argument for inclusion. Let me know if you feel strongly and I can set up an RfC for including "Wuhan coronavirus" and "Wuhan pneumonia" in the other names section. - Wikmoz (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This is one of those issues that won't go fast, lets dig for some sources, and we can construct an RfC together. It may be better to centralize it at WT:COVID, and invite participation from several pages. Carl Fredrik^talk 17:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If the names are notable, they should be in the article, however with proper weight given. A simple sentence with the names and proper context along with the proper citations would be enough. We don't get to exclude them simply because they are or could be offensive, otherwise we wouldn't have an article like Mongolian idiocy as brought up by Doc James.MartinezMD (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wuhan coronavirus" is in the article with proper context. I'm just questioning whether to include the now-obsolete name in the infobox without context... especially given how variants are being used. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping to avoid turning this into a larger discussion with editors from other topics. The issue seems to be bringing out the worst in people and is pulling editors off more serious editing tasks. Can we try a focused RfC here? Limited to including "Wuhan coronavirus" and "Wuhan pneumonia" in the other names list? We can do a separate support/oppose !vote for each within the RfC. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason I suggested a RfC at WT:COVID was so that we could have a focused RfC on infoboxes for all three articles: SARS-CoV-2, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and here — in one fell swoop. It's essentially the exact same issue. If we just give 2-3 days to construct it properly we won't have to have 3 pages running the same RfC. It'll be pretty much the same editors anyway. Carl Fredrik^talk 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

While I don't like it, since "China virus" was used repeatedly by a major head of state, it should have a single mention in the terminology section. I think it should not be in the infobox. MartinezMD (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Certainly open to it but I fear that we're opening Pandora's box. - Wikmoz (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The name is unfortunately still in common use even though discouraged. So even though it initially went by "China pneumonia" that is still being used and thus means it is still a current other name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've found current references to "Novel coronavirus pneumonia" but no recent references to "China pneumonia" or "Wuhan pneumonia" by RS/RSP/MEDRS sources. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For some people there are probably ideological influences behind insisting that alternate public names for this virus should not be included in this article. The same can also be true of some people who insist on including them. I don't think it's important to have them in the article right now. (Why is it so urgent?) In the long run, however, including variant names makes sense. The overall purpose of Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic. Otherwise why should the Wikipedia article called Spanish_flu continued to be named that way (as of 4-17-20), and continue to reference its other names? If there's such a rule here, it needs to be universal and official. BUT: I'm uncomfortable with censoring topics that are intended to be sources of definitive information, even for matters of sensitivity. I'm fine with it temporarily because it's just not important right now. I do think that the official name for viruses be used as the title of the articles, not nicknames. But nicknames used in the search should redirect to the correct articles since they would be used by researchers in years to come who find different phraseology in archived news articles, statistical information, or elsewhere. Also, while it is moot for the moment, I agree with the recent removal of the rhetoric in the article which had stated: "...there are attempts to lay blame on the China government for the problem, using the words Wuhan Pneumonia to assign fault..." I would continue to veto that sort of phraseology from this article for several reasons. 1) A person does not "attempt" to lay blame. They either lay blame or not. It might be founded and proved, or it might be unfounded and not proved. But a prosecution attorney does not "attempt" to accuse the defendant. They just accuse. 2) The word "blame" is usually used in the context of shaming the person who is accusing. It is used for derogative purposes, and therefore reflects an opinion. The word "accuse" is more appropriate. 3) This article is about the disease caused by the SAR-Cov-2 virus, and there will be an unprecedented volume of data about it. This means there will have to be separate related articles. One of them might review the political and economic climate of the outbreak, where the statement would be more appropriate. I think the main article needs to be focused on defining the infection and its effects, and not meander into the social responses. Rather, it should link to articles on those sub-topics. - Symphonitron (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Name of virus ?

How is possible to call it covid 19 when the mentioned of Wikipedia articles it belongs to Wuhan a place in China Why it cannot be called China 3th virus to the world Dhawal kishor Deogade (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

See Coronavirus disease 2019#Nomenclature Natureium (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The first outbreak was in Wuhan, the first KNOWN case was, but now the CDC is openly saying that there was about 1% of all admission in the emergency already around october 1st (and even before) that was CLI (COVID-19-like illness). [8]. Not every pneumonia case is tested. In USA there is typically a flu test and then the rest is categorized as "not a flu". That's about the best health care practices in the world in that regard. Many country do not even go that far. The background noise is the same around the world. I know that there is a lot of people who don't like China's gov. and would love to blame everything on it. And i'm not a fan myself, but we will likely never know where the virus come from. All I can say with confidence is that it's unlikely that there was more then one million deaths around the world when the first case was spotted in Wuhan. It was probably not the main cause of pneumonia this summer ? I may be exaggerating a bit for comical effect, but we really don't know much about this virus. Iluvalar (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"COVID" vs. "Covid"

Wikipedia seems to have made an editorial decision to use "COVID-19" rather than "Covid-19", but I have no idea why. Normally, all caps is used for initialisms, where each letter stands for a word (e.g., WHO for World Health Organisation). "Covid" stands for "Coronavirus disease 2019"; it is not an initialism. Some style guides even prescribe that initialisms that can be pronounced as a word (e.g. Unesco) should not be all caps. "Covid" makes more sense & is easier on the eyes. I urge this to be changed systemwide. CasparRH (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@CasparRH: We've had this discussion over at WT:COVID-19 last month and established consensus. It followed from the WHO's orthography in naming the disease and quite a few other sources use this capitalisation as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Tenryuu Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Should we add information about BCG to the article: Irish Times "Coronavirus: More ‘striking’ evidence BCG vaccine might protect against Covid-19"

Here's the article called "Coronavirus: More ‘striking’ evidence BCG vaccine might protect against Covid-19" https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/coronavirus-more-striking-evidence-bcg-vaccine-might-protect-against-covid-19-1.4222110?mode=amp Seems worth a reference, maybe here or in the possible treatments article, or both. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z: Maybe in the COVID-19 vaccine page, but listed as news "The Irish Times reported on XX that there was evidence BCG". Definitely get more consensus than just me for this since news is not WP:MEDRS. sam1370 (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No we should not add it here. We need proper sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Or anywhere else until we have WP:MEDRS sources. Graham Beards (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Additions to History section of COVID-19 article

I would like to suggest the following additions to the History of COVID 19 section:

1. World Health Organization (WHO) failed to report in December human to human contact for virus based on report by Taiwan. Source: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/taiwan-accuses-who-of-failing-to-heed-warning-of-coronavirus-human-to-human-transmission/ 2. China hoarded masks in January (possibly based on prior knowledge of pandemic). Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8178365/China-imported-2billion-masks-peak-coronavirus-crisis.html 3. Wuhan virus may have started in Chinese lab in that city due to poor security measures. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/politics/us-intelligence-virus-started-chinese-lab/index.html 4. WHO may have been complicit in China's cover up. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/world-health-organization-blame-pandemic-coronavirus/609820/ 5. Medical goods for U.S. stranded by China. Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-export-restrictions-strand-medical-goods-u-s-needs-to-fight-coronavirus-state-department-says-11587031203?mod=hp_lead_pos3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBrix$28 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources comply with WP:MEDRS. And it is not allowed to use The Daily Mail as a source for any Wikipedia article.Graham Beards (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not arguing in favor of the topics, but none of them require MEDRS. They are not making medical/treatment assertions. They need the basic standard of WP:RS. MartinezMD (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Why would we want to use third-hand reporting from an obviously right-wing biased source like National Review, when their report is based on the rather more neutral reporting in the Financial Times source? If you read the entire FT article, you come away with a lot more than just the headline.
The Daily Mail fabricates news and isn't usable as a source on Wikipedia. (see WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYMAIL2 MartinezMD (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC))
The CNN source says that the US Government is looking into a possibility. That does not translate into "Wuhan virus may have started in Chinese lab", a piece of blatant scapegoating that no mainstream view supports.
The Atlantic article looks well-balanced and covers a breadth of opinions, but it's entirely about the the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, so not really on-topic here, particularly with such a spin as you're suggesting.
Don't the Chinese export restrictions affect a lot more than medical goods for the USA? Perhaps somebody with a WSJ subscription can read the full article and give more of an opinion on this one. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Demoting body image because it’s not backed by current references

Lead image

Both CDC and WHO list symptoms, but they don’t give numbers. One reference which does is from a Wuhan Jinyinstan Hospital with patients from Jan. 1 to Jan. 20. Hospitalized patients from one location over one three week people, no, it’s not enough to generalize from.

I’m going to list those references here. We probably need to demote it to at least the “Signs and symptoms” section, and back here to the talk page. And probably go with a table instead, to the extent we can find a current reference giving percentages (maybe CDC or WHO backed off on giving percentages on symptoms). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

—————-

"Symptoms of Coronavirus". U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 20 March 2020. Archived from the original on 30 January 2020.

No percentages are given for how common any symptom is [on either web page or archive]. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

——————-

It's not our job to analyse sources and impose our own criteria on them. We only determine the quality of the source. If the CDC says "x, y, and z" are symptoms, that's what we report. It's not our place to determine whether something like "diarrhoea: 3.7%" is significant enough to be mentioned; that's the job of the reliable secondary source. I strongly suggest you revert yourself. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS:, I’d really like you on board with this project if possible.

Please re-read my suggestion, for I think we largely do agree. I’m saying there is an absence of secondary sources. Maybe WHO used to give a laundry list of symptoms with percentages, but they don’t anymore [nor are they in the below WHO archive].

The article on the one Wuhan hospital is a primary source, perhaps worth including toward the end of “Signs and symptoms,” but not enough to support a figure displayed this prominently in our lead. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

—————————

"Q&A on coronaviruses". World Health Organization. 8 April 2020. Archived from the original on 20 January 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.

With beginning symptoms, neither the web page nor the archive make any mention of percentages.

The page does state that approximately 1 out of 6 persons who are infected with Coronavirus will become seriously sick and develop difficulty in breathing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

———————

Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y, et al. (February 2020). "Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study". Lancet. 395 (10223): 507–513. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30211-7. PMC 7135076. PMID 32007143.

“ . . In this retrospective, single-centre study, we included all confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020. . ”

As a group, we might have a really good discussion and debate about whether we include primary sources such as this, simply because at this stage of the pandemic, there may not be that many secondary sources.

But what we should not do, at least I’d argue, is include a primary source this prominently in our lead. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The CDC page Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) updated April 3rd, lists percentage ranges in the Presentation section. I think a percentage range is a more honest assessment of what is known about these percentages. Shall we update the symptom list and body image with these numbers? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mark viking: Yes, Please, I’m all for it! And plus, I think only symptoms with, say, more than 50% should be listed above the body image, might you agree? We currently list: Fever (88%) . . . Dry cough (68%) . . . Fatigue (38%). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

———-

In our lead’s Infobox, I removed the body image, made sure Symptoms included the first five from CDC’s Interim Clinical Guidance, and also added Energency Warning Signs from CDC’s Symptoms of Coronavirus.

Next I want to dive into Signs and symptoms and esp. how the table checks out against both Interim Clinical Guidance and maybe the following as well:

Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (PDF) (Report). World Health Organization (WHO). 16–24 February 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 February 2020. Retrieved 21 March 2020.

Fellow editors, please dive in and help if you have the time and interest. Thanks! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I was never a fan of the content layout in this diagram. Placing the most common symptoms horizontally below the title is odd. I actually missed it the first two times I saw this. Second, the classification of common and uncommon symptom sounds arbitrary and original. I'd suggest just listing the full top 10 vertically on the left. Perhaps then group remaining symptoms with an "additional symptoms" heading along the bottom. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I took the first five from CDC’s Interim Clinical and simply listed them in words in the Infobox at Symptoms, placing Loss of Appetite before Fatigue because to my eye the range 40–84% was clearly more. I suppose this last part might count as original on my part, although just barely.

If we go with the top ten from most to least on a body diagram, the lines will cross like crazy, plus some are systemic. And really, we all know where the brain, lungs, intestines, etc, are anyway.

To me, the main benefit of a body diagram is a splash of color. For this, I’d prefer photos with captions, such as drive-in testing, such as a person wearing a N95 mask, etc. In addition, these wouldn’t need to be updated as often. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I've checked this image about 20 times to reference the percentages and not once did I follow the lines to a body part. I think it works just as well with the body and without the lines. The critical data are the symptoms in order of frequency. Trying to pin each to a body part is superficial in comparison. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: the percentages come from WHO-China Joint Mission, 16-24 Feb. 2020, page 12. Except WHO-China lists diarrhea at only 4%, and doesn’t list loss of smell at all.

I’m more concerned that for a few of the symptoms listed In severe disease, I don’t recall seeing in other sources.

And, this is just too much fun and let me go ahead and ask you, you’re obviously bright enough to take a keen interest in Coronavirus, . . . did you really find it that enlightening that the brain was in the head and the heart in the chest, and intestines below that . . . or rather was it just a nice splash of color? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

————-

Refs are listed on Commons. I am sure the author of that image would be happy to update. Have restored for now as has been in the article for some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: it’s the guy’s own original work!, which is probably great for Commons. But it’s not our encyclopedic standard, not by a long stretch, even if the guy is a doctor, which he is. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström: before I was concerned that it’s hard to update, but now I find out that it’s your own original work ? ! And in fairness, I’ve got to let you know this conversation is going on. Look, we’re pleased as punch having actual doctors, but this is just not the place for original stuff. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m most concerned about symptoms “In severe disease,” several of which I have not seen in other sources. And, then:

WHO-China Joint Mission, 16-24 Feb. 2020, page 12:

The body diagram seems to be primarily from this, but . . . WHO-China Joint only shows 4% for diarrhea, and our body diagram shows a much bigger range, going much higher. And WHO-China Joint doesn’t list loss of smell at all.

Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), U.S. CDC, April 6, 2020.

This gives percentage ranges, is more recent and has seven footnotes, although all pertaining to China and the overwhelming majority to the city of Wuhan. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The data that makes up the image has references. I do not see this as an issue. Most of our images come from Wikipedians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: okay, for starters, WHO-China Joint Mission shows diarrhea at 4% of patients, but our diagram gives a range of 4-30%, which is quite a difference. And then, In severe disease on our diagram lists “coughing up blood,” which I have not seen on other sources, and “high temperature,” which would be of considerably higher quality if we also gave a number.

And more broadly . . . we need references, for crying out loud. Even if a fellow Wikipedian does a bang-up, A #1 job with an image, we still need references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What is wrong with all the references listed here[9] Not everything was based on that one source. User:FriendlyRiverOtter? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This ref supports https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32191830 But is not the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, let’s get something approaching the best, slowly and steadily of course. And I’d really like footnotes on the claims themselves, and I think that’s reasonable. And then, there are the above questions about the severe symptoms. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

new source for table in Signs and symptoms

We currently use:

Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (PDF) (Report). World Health Organization (WHO). 16–24 February 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 February 2020. Retrieved 21 March 2020.

I recommend that we instead go with:

"Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020-04-06. Archived from the original on 2 March 2020. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

This is a more recent source which uses seven different footnotes to give estimated ranges for symptoms. And I plan to keep using a couple of other sources we currently use to give the estimated range for loss of smell as a symptom. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, FriendlyRiverOtter! I have now made an update that instead uses the reference you provided for common symptoms, and have made replacements in English Wikipedia. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström: I still have my misgivings, such as:

Interim Clinical Guidance, CDC, April 6, 2020.

”Atypical presentations have been described, and older adults and persons with medical comorbidities may have delayed presentation of fever and respiratory symptoms.10,11 In one study of 1,099 hospitalized patients, fever was present in only 44% at hospital admission but later developed in 89% during hospitalization.”

(This is given right after the percentages.)

To me, this is huge. Only 44% of people actually hospitalized with COVID had fever at the start of their hospitalization! ? ! But according to a study published in the New Eng J Med of 500+ hospitals in China (through Jan. 29) and referenced by the U.S. CDC, that is indeed the case. And when we add in:

As coronavirus cases grow, some of the largest US employers including Walmart and Amazon turn to thermometers as detection tool, CNBC, April 4, 2020.

With companies using fever as a go or no go screening tool, and also governments at airports, we should roll with the info we have, which clearly says that fever is not always there at the beginning. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19 – Better known by short name. 94.179.168.56 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Everyone is calling it the coronavirus not covid-19. You can check Google to see which one comes up more often if you like. Dream Focus 12:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:ACRONYMTITLE says that acronyms in page titles should be used only "if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation", and I'm not sure that's strictly true. However, even if it was, policy then sets the standard that "consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications". By the same reasoning we use as a community for not moving "Central Intelligence Agency" to "CIA", we should not move "Coronavirus disease 2019" to "COVID-19". Given that COVID-19 already redirects here anyway, I'm not sure what the point of the move would be anyway, considering that there is clearly no ambiguity at its current title, and arguably less possible ambiguity than there would be if the move were to take place. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy oppose. We've decided on how to handle this per item 2 of the {{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}} that is at the top of this talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy oppose. see Tenryuu's comment above. COVID-19 will definitively be on the table when we'll finally decide to take a look at the situation. But as of now, the consensus is to top the renaming every 2 days. Iluvalar (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for now. In terms of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, "coronavirus" used to win by 10:1 so including "coronavirus" in the title was critical. In recent weeks though, "covid" has definitely gained wide usage. I think a fair debate can be had in the future but for now, I'd keep the status quo. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose and close. We have discussed this already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Not again please. We have discussed this before. Graham Beards (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Support: No one literally searches for "Coronavirus disease 2019", which is long and pedantic, and why the renaming issue keeps getting revisited. "COVID-19" fits WP:NAMINGCRITERIA criteria much better. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have "COVID-19", "covid-19", and "covid 19" along with other search terms redirecting to the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above was inappropriately and prematurely closed before 20 hours had passed from its introduction. There are good reasons why requested moves allow for a 7-day discussion period. One of which is that editors don't all have time to edit 24&7 here. Their voice is no less important than those editors who were given time to express their opinions. It's certainly not in the interest of Wikipedia to quash input as was done in this case. For the record, this closure was not done in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.

A similar discussion on Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has generated a lot of discussion which is ongoing. No doubt, the consensus reached there will reflect better the opinions of editors than the total of eight who had the chance to participate here. N.B. This comment is not part of the discussion above, but rather a reflection only on how it was closed. Let it not be construed as such. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

3D animation of coronavirus

This 3D animation of the virus responsible for the disease might be a value addition to the article, File:2019-nCoV-coronavirus-3D-wuhan-hubei.webm. I kindly urge editors who are regularly working on the article to add it, if deemed fit. KCVelaga (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

This edit request to Coronavirus disease 2019 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

COVID-19 is so new that in trying to only include what's proven / studied in depth, it's not that useful and can be outdated. Why not have two sections on symptoms, those we have many citations for and a second section for symptoms that have been reported but our understanding is still developing. For example, blood clots causing stroke or "covidtoes" in children have seen some recent articles, but not mentioned at all yet in Wikipedia. Here's one article with more information on blood clots and COVID-19 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/are-blood-clots-to-blame-for-covid-19-deaths#Evidence-of-pulmonary-embolism

Also, can we have a section listing all the lessons learned from this pandemic across all different countries and health authorities. The response for the most part across the board is not that great, we should all hope it doesn't repeat itself in the next wave or the next pandemic. We need a central place to record how things went wrong this time. i.e.,

Lack of timeliness of response by country
Countries that did not encourage masks
Early wrong assumptions that it would not spread in the air, and used as initial education to the public, probably exasperated the spread more if health authorities could have said it was unknown instead
Lack of protocol from businesses in the travel industry, cruiselines had no idea what to do, airports are not conducting screening at all, before people get on a flight and after
Hoarding of PPE even within the same country
Lack of protocol and contingency plans for Long term care homes
Politicians fighting rather than cooperating
Ability to ramp up contact tracing

Emhui (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so we are bound to "only include what's proven / studied in depth", regardless of whether you find that useful or not. The section for symptoms with many citations belongs on Wikipedia; the section for symptoms that have been reported but have no quality sources belongs on somebody's blog site.

When we have reviews that evaluate primary studies like "Acute Pulmonary Embolism Associated with COVID-19 Pneumonia Detected by Pulmonary CT Angiography" and "Acute Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19 Patients on CT Angiography and Relationship to D-Dimer Levels", we'll be able to use the conclusions of those reviews to make a statement about the speculated link.

"Lessons learned from the handling of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" sounds to me like it should be considered for the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, not the article about the disease itself (this one). Wouldn't you agree?

--RexxS (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Emhui for comment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, Please see]] -->

Ranking preventative measures and expanding on minimising exposure to infectious aerosol

The primary transmission route for Covid 19 is aerosol containing live virus. Surely in the article this should be clearly addressed first with the much more difficult route via surfaces to hand then hand to mucous membrane being looked at second.

Alongside reducing the number of contacts between individuals general advice on distancing is aimed providing a volume around each person in which the infectious aerosol can settle before reaching the respiratory tract of non immune people. The role of ventilation however is often drowned out in reporting by fastidious attention to hand washing which is a means of interrupting the much lower risk presented by surface to hand to mucous membrane route.

In a small closed room 2m separation is unlikely to be able to maintain safe level of aerosol over longer periods of time due to the poor settling behaviour of the fine fraction of exhaled droplets and the repeated inhalation of the same droplet containing air. This will be very familiar to anybody used to dealing with hazardous fine dust.

The most obvious and simplest counter measure is ventilation and the most effective, cheap and ecologically sound method of maintaining ventilation is to go outside and enjoy a light breeze or a strong wind. Personally this leaves me at a loss to understand why most implementations of social distancing fail to take account of this simple benefit to having people outside at a proper distance which can also be observed and properly controlled if necessary rather than driving people in doors with the inherent associated risks and lack of public oversight.

Again given the efficacy in respect of preventing the directed and much longer range projection of aerosol and larger droplets during coughing and sneezing I would rank coughing and sneezing techniques as highly desirable and present them ahead of hand washing, although even I would see hand washing after sneezing directly on ones hands as highly desirable and not just in terms of Corna transmission minimisation, and give clear simple practical advice on how to deal with these events if the prove to be unavoidable at short notice. Simple non FFP classified masks clearly also have a contribution to make in this respect.

Rob-runs (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a set of very interesting conclusions. What were the sources you used for them? --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My main point really was simply putting the counter measures in a sensible clear order based on the information in this article. I checked the CDC reference (16) on hand transmission and this really just says might be possible but isn't the main route then carries on to say now wash your hands. The German Bundesanstalt für Risikobewertung here essentially says the same thing. i.e. possible but certainly not the main transmission route.

As far as aerosols go I have a lot of experience with fine dust in the form of fillers and pigments where once you need FFP2 or FFP3 settling isn't something they do easily despite having densities in part well above 2. Having to do air change calculations however leaves you with a pretty clear understanding of just what staggering amounts of air the wind moves. The room I'm sitting has a floor area of 40m2 and a volume 100m3. A 3.6 km/h breeze would change the air in the room completely every 5 to 8 seconds depending on direction which is 45,000 to 72,000 m3/h. In comparison a good kitchen hood moves 500 to 800 m3/h which at best is an air change every 7.5 minutes and would require plug flow across the entire room, which is never going to happen.

Transmission of Covid 19 is obviously a chain of interacting probability fields three of which are:

1) How much virus is somebody emitting 2) What concentration can be maintained in the air around them 3) How much and how deeply can the suspended virus be inhaled by another person

1) and 3) are both time dependent and 2) depends on settling and ventilation rates

Settling rates for portion of the droplet size distribution of most concern to virologists is apparently high enough to have them be below mouth and nose levels after 2m. In the absence of ventilation the remaining fine non settling fraction will increase in concentration over time depending on 1)

Again in terms of what I was trying to point out 2) must surely be pretty close to zero in even the lightest breeze outside providing surely a valuable factor of safety if the 2m separation is observed.

Rob-runs (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)