Talk:Zika fever

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

Needs work[edit]

This page needs to improved. Using the Ebola virus disease article as a guide is probably a good idea. There should be signs and symptoms at the top. Move the symptoms from the current Zika virus outbreak in South America (2015–present) page. juanTamad (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Vaccine[edit]

Evidence for the existence of a vaccine requires more than a claim by someone that they made one. People make claims like this all the time and they have nothing to do with prevention.[1]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sexual transmission[edit]

I've toned down the confidence level. [2] The source, an as yet unpublished manuscript, uses "strong possibility", not "confirmed". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

An interesting question - is someone willing to address it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.188.207 (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Aedes albopictus[edit]

The Aedes albopictus article is BADLY outdated, and it's important because this is the mosquito that spreads Zika. Are there any experts in the field who can give that article some urgently-needed updating? In particular, the map in that article is from 2007. CometEncke (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed[edit]

The article says that symptoms cease within 7 days, but does that mean that the virus is at that point gone from the blood stream? Or does it remain latent in the blood stream indefinitely?

Zika virus is cleared rapidly and has not been reported to establish latency. I added a reference to this in the diagnosis section. Pgcudahy (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The First Human Cases[edit]

While the 'first human cases were reported in Nigeria in 1954', only now the news and information outlets report it as a story. Might not the reason/s behind this late reporting be addressed?

Before the Brazil outbreak the link with microcephaly and GBS were not well established so Zika was not seen as a threat. You might want to check out the article Zika Virus Outside Africa by Edward B. Hayes (doi 10.3201/eid1509.090442) which was written before the Brazil outbreak but has a good narrative history of efforts to study the virus since the 1950s. Pgcudahy (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

2013-2014 Zika fever outbreaks in Oceania[edit]

A draft has been started on the outbreaks in the Pacific Ocean islands that preceded the outbreak in the Americas here: 2013-2014 Zika fever outbreaks in Oceania. Please do not remove this notice without explanation. juanTamad (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Breastfeeding[edit]

The current text on how the WHO is continuing to recommend breastfeeding under the Prevention heading isn't really relevant to prevention of Zika transmission, unlike the preceding line on condom use. The source does not specifically mention breastfeeding as helping to directly prevent Zika transmission or aiding in preventing Zika infection, only that the benefits of breastfeeding outweigh any potential risk at present. It might be better to move this under the Transmission heading. Alcherin (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zika fever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.Gorthian (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing research[edit]

I am setting up a mailing list for ongoing research around Zika virus, Zika fever and Zika virus outbreak (2015–present). So if any questions come up here that need expert input, please ping me or post there directly. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Country detail[edit]

Hi, Pgcudahy. I disagree with your edit that added the list of currently affected countries back into the article. I originally took out the list for two reasons: 1) that level of detail is already in the article about the current outbreak, and seems out of scope for this article, which is supposed to be about the disease; and 2) the list was way out of date—countries and territories are being added frequently, and the list in this article hasn't been kept up. Several editors work at the outbreak article to keep the tables of countries and numbers of cases up to date. We could put a hatnote on the travel section here, perhaps, linking to the outbreak article.— Gorthian (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I get tons of questions about Zika and number 1 is where do I need to be worried about this and number 2 is how significant are the risks of microcephaly and GBS. This should be a core element of the article. I have been keeping it up to date so far, are there any errors you see needing correction? Pgcudahy (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

I'm not sure if the new History section belongs in this article. There are already several detailed articles documenting individual outbreaks of Zika and this appears to be mainly copy-pasted from Zika_virus_outbreak_(2015–present). I think the Epidemiology section with brief summaries and links to the more detailed pages is a better fit and this is just unnecessary duplication. Pgcudahy (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit note[edit]

@Doc James: I'm sorry you removed the edit note with your last edit. I know it's sort of shouty, but I was reverting a spate of edits that were trying to say the link to microcephaly is still unproven (see [3], [4], [5], and [6]). I finally inserted that note so other editors wouldn't keep on adding words like "suspected" into the leads of the Zika articles. I made it all capitals so it wouldn't get lost in the text-soup of citations in the editing window. — Gorthian (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it, here. Not a big fan of all caps. Agree it is now confirmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

research[edit]

Hi. I just wonder what's wrong about including information about the current research state that it had to be removed? (I refer to revision 725602224 of User:Jytdog - "Going back further".) --83.240.62.72 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

... especially comparing the information value to "However, at least one company has publicly stated that a vaccine could be available for emergency use by the end of 2016." which hadn't to be removed. --83.240.62.72 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

this is the diff I reverted.
1) You didn't include "information" you added noise - words that when added together are not even true. (there is no way anyone can say the compound is "effective" at this point in time). 2) You added the words in the "treatment" section but this project is 12 years and hundreds of millions of dollars away from producing an actual drug treatment, and it has a tiny chance of succeeding even if it gets that far, like most discovery programs at an early stage. 3) The words are cited to what we call a primary source (PMID 27234417) and we source content about health in Wikipedia to reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major health authorities. (see WP:MEDRS). 4) The underlying research is just "news" at this time, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. 5) And if you would stop thinking about promoting your own research for a second (the authors of the paper are from the Czech republic, so was the ip that added it and so is the OP here, think about what a complete pile of garbage this article would be, if every time some lab published a paper with a "potential treatment", people from the lab added words about it to this article. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank your pointing out that the vaccine words. I removed them. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
1) Well, I'm not a native speaker, I'm doing many mistakes, but still I'm pretty sure the information I've added made sense. If not, I thought the point of wiki is that anyone can fix that, and completely removing is not fixing. As for "effective", if something is not even true, then it is your text about it - did you even read the paper? - to quote: "the introduction of the 2 ́-C-methyl substituent M to the nucleoside β-face resulted in inhibition of ZIKV replication in vitro". So, the compound obviously is effective if it has some (desired) effect on the virus.
2) This is relevant both to treatment and to research. As stated above, anyone can fix wiki, not just the language but also the wrong placement. I've chosen the treatment section because it was just one sentence which IMHO nicely extended the information about treatment (un)availability. I don't think that the wording "candidate for antiviral drugs development" suggests that we would be those twelve years and many dollars closer to production - in fact, I believe it says exactly the opposite (and you are free to read the source which states explicitly that the next step is rodent testing, i.e. far from giving something to human). The fact that you don't believe the compound to be used in the end (or how to interpret "has tiny chance of succeeding"?) doesn't invalidate that this is the current state of knowledge; also talking about "project" in the sense of making commercially available drug is inappropriate here, it is just base research study.
3) This looks like (the only) valid point at the first sight. However, my reading of the guidelines is not that it would forbid using primary sources - in fact it gives even an example that primary source may be used when no secondary is available. (Also note that another narrower study with similar results is referred within the study in question.) And, in addition, this article is full of primary sources, so it begs a question why do you want to strictly apply such rule selectively on this while being benevolent elsewhere ... or are you going to delete half of the article?
4) Funny to read this about edit made the same day when Jo Cox#Death was added ... Again, the guideline you refer to doesn't prohibit adding this information. It is just your opinion that this classifies as "news", mine is that it represents the current state of research.
5) This is wrong on so many levels ... There are about ten million people in Czech Rep., yet you are sure that I am one of the five Czech-based of the eight authors. Great deduction! (sigh, domaintool even reports the company and you ignore the mismatch, same country is sufficient "proof" ...) Yes, it was somehow easier for me to spot this when my daily commute is around the institute which published the study. Most people in the U.S. probably don't even know that Brno exists, so they can hardly read local news. But that doesn't imply that I'm affiliated to the authors. If you'd apply this logic everywhere then 2/3 of Wikipedia would be gone because most information is added by people from countries connected to the subject.
I am not even a medician or biochemist or anything like that, and probably that's the reason why do I consider the information noteworthy and strongly disagree that it would make the article a pile of garbage. Ordinary people do not watch scientific journals daily, reading Wikipedia is usually a good way for us to get some overview about the topic. And the sole information that treatment is not available isn't quite enough to satisfy reader's curiousity (is there any chance that it will ever be available, is it under development?)
p.s. If you like refering to policies, here's one for you: Wikipedia:NOTBATTLE - starting with an insult ("you added noise"), pushing your speculations ("tiny chance of success") and POV ("just news") and assuming someone's identity and (immoral) motivation isn't much friendly attitude ... --83.240.62.72 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The content you added was noise - it made no sense in English and was not true. This is one of the most-viewed medical articles right now and we have to keep the quality of the content, and its sourcing, very high. Also this article is not full of primary sources. By the way, this isn't personal. The content and source you have proposed are not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Vaccine info[edit]

Quantanew, I reverted your edit because vaccines are in the very earliest phases of development—they've got a long, long way to go before they're ready to be tested on humans, particularly pregnant ones. Even if we can successfully vaccinate mice, that's a far cry from being ready to vaccinate people. "There is currently no vaccine" is a simple statement of fact. "There is currently no approved vaccine" implies that there are unapproved vaccines; it is no longer a factual statement. Please revert that edit.— Gorthian (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding to my previous source a human trial for Zika is approved by FDA in June 2016. And this means that there are unapproved vaccines and this is a trustful and factual statement supported with sources. Can you provide sources that there aren't vaccines available? Quantanew (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, you could not go and get a vaccine right now, could you? They are not available. — Gorthian (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
That's because there is not an approved vaccine yet, just because is unavailable for the public doesn't mean they don't exist and you can't provided proper sources for your claim. Quantanew (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here are quotes from several sources:

Would you agree to change the wording in the article from "There is currently no approved vaccine" to "There is currently no available vaccine"? That seems clearer to me.

As I'm saying there are no approved vaccines available and your sources confirm that and I cite my sources again.
I'm familiar with your sources. Would you please answer my question? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Causal link[edit]

The US CDC declared in April 2016 that the causal relationship (between zika and microcephaly) had been successfully determined.

Establishing this causal relationship between Zika and fetal brain defects is an important step in driving additional prevention efforts, focusing research activities, and reinforcing the need for direct communication about the risks of Zika. While one important question about causality has been answered, many questions remain. Answering these will be the focus of ongoing research to help improve prevention efforts, which ultimately may help reduce the effects of Zika virus infection during pregnancy.[1]

They continued that "many questions remain" after (in Background) stating, "The report notes that no single piece of evidence provides conclusive proof that Zika virus infection is a cause of microcephaly and other fetal brain defects."

MaynardClark (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

No single piece of evidence, but "increasing evidence from a number of recently published studies and a careful evaluation using established scientific criteria supports the authors’ conclusions."
This reference has been in the article since the report came out in April. Do you have a reason for posting it here now? — Gorthian (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"child in womb" and "type" to fetus and genus[edit]

I changed "child in womb" to the more correct term "fetus" and "kind" to the more accurate "genus". Doc James reverted to "child in womb" and "type" for some reason. It seems to me that, unless these are the terms used by the sources, we should use the more accurate terms. Doc? Desoto10 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We should be writing using easy to understand language as much as possible. The highly educated with excellent vocabularies have tons of amazing sources at their disposal. They do not need us. Much of the rest of the world does.
Thus WP:MEDMOS says "The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Prognosis?[edit]

The article said nothing about the prognosis. I added a quotation from a likely-looking online source as a starting point. Somebody who knows where to get reliably sourced information should improve that section. It's more urgent than sections like History; how did it get overlooked? Zaslav (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Can the editors not be so reactionary?[edit]

Over the last year I've made the bulk of the substantial edits to this page (ie not just cleaning refs or adding a few words here and there), yet every time I touch it, editors swoop in and delete half of what I add. In the most recent case Jytdog didn't like my use of primary sources for a couple of edits. I agree that secondary sources are better but would argue that this is a rapidly changing field so it would make sense to relax that guideline at times, especially when using primary lit from very well respected journals such as Science and NEJM. This isn't the usual fringe stuff that trolls like to sneak into articles. Which brings me to my larger point. I think that some editors have become so used to just rooting out spam and trolls that they just react with a quick delete to anything that might not fit with their preferences. Why not spend an extra 10 minutes and either hunt for a secondary source if you're so passionate about it, or send me a message, or do anything but reflexively hitting revert. An editor should EDIT. They should think about what makes best sense for the article, not whether it conforms to some policy. For an example, in his recent delections Jytdog took out information I had added on monkey trials of vaccines. I think that is an important indication of how far along things have progressed beyond "vaccines aren't expected anytime soon." But Jytdog just refers to some policy, deletes, and doesn't think twice. That made the article less informative. What have you ADDED to this article to make it more informative? Pgcudahy (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

There is enough decent secondary sources that I do not think primary sources are needed outside a section at the end on research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the information because we are not a newspaper; There is no vaccine and that is what we need to communicate in the vaccine section and at a very high level, that work is being done on them. I guess we could have a section down in Research describing what is going on, but even that should be sourced to reviews by experts who describe what is significant and what isn't. Any vaccine in development may or may not amount to anything, and no one knows how long it will take and there are scads of papers reporting early stage work on vaccine candidates; there would be no end to "updating" this article with information about this or that specific research study and selecting any one to "feature" by writing about it in this article is just some editor's random judgement. This is why rely on reviews by experts. So please don't continue adding content based on primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
My judgement isn't random, I have expertise in this domain, which you don't appear to have. Instead your expertise appears to be in bureaucratic Wikipedia policies. I think your attitude towards people who try and make bold edits is the leading reason why Wikipedia is having difficulty recruiting new editors. It sure does make me wonder why I bother. I'm not arguing the policies, I'm arguing the attitude that anything that isn't up to your standard gets deleted, rather than improved or constructive criticism made. Pgcudahy (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Once again there are lots of secondary sources. Why the resistance to using them?
I also have expertise but agree to following the same guidelines as those who do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Pgcudahy, please see your Talk page Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You just did it again. Please explain why the development of three vaccines that protect from viral challenge is not important and relevant information. Pgcudahy (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No, last time i completely removed what you added. Here i copyedited it. Why? "make encyclopedic and follow RELTIME" per my edit note. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Call it what you want, you still deleted relevant information without justification. How is the development of protective vaccines not encyclopedic? Pgcudahy (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The only issue is the level of detail. The details of development don't go in the medical section of any article; that is Research or History, and those sections in this article about Research/History of the disease. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
So now you admit that the information is relevant, but in the wrong section? Then why didn't you move it and preserve the information, rather than flush it down the toilet? This has been my issue all along. You reflexively delete rather than edit. Or you delete to force others into editing it into a shape you'd like to see rather than doing the real work. Pgcudahy (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
no, we are not "sparring" and you are not listening to me. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Section header[edit]

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article is neutral, nothing appears very biased at all.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? No everything is up to date 131.94.186.11 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Courtney Tabor @Alfgarciamora:

Mice testicles Comment[edit]

Concern for men's health mounts as Zika batters testicles of mice in new study. It seems Zika causes mice testicles to shrink.

I don't know where this would go in the article. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. Content about health needs to be supported with a ref per WP:MEDRS; we generally don't add content based on primary sources describing animal studies. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)