Talk:Black fungus (COVID-19 condition)
 | This article was nominated for merging with Mucormycosis in the past. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was to merge. |
"Erroneously"[edit]
In what sense is the label "black fungus" erroneous? The provided source doesn't say. It says it's a fungal infection. Surely it's not erroneous to call it black just because it's not literally black. It's not "erroneously" called black tea, or a black eye. I don't see how a common name for a clinical condition is "erroneous" either. Why is it "erroneously" called "black fungus"? I'd like to know, so if there is a good reason it says that in this article, a better source would be nice. TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TheGreatConsultingDetective: Agree, per edit summary here. Thank you, 86.186.155.163 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Best sources the world has to offer[edit]
I am removing the problem template {{More medical citations needed}} because this article right now is one of the rare cases when we can say that Wikipedia is citing everything. This is a newly described medical condition from weeks ago. Currently this Wikipedia article is citing what might be the only systematic review, a review from a national medical journal, and perhaps the only expert guidance from a national health organization.
- Garg D, Muthu V, Sehgal IS, Ramachandran R, Kaur H, Bhalla A, Puri GD, Chakrabarti A, Agarwal R (2021). "Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19) Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): Case report and systematic review of literature". Mycopathologia. 186 (2): 289–298. doi:10.1007/s11046-021-00528-2. PMC 7862973. PMID 33544266.
- Sen M, Honavar SG, Sharma N, Sachdev MS (2021). "COVID-19 and Eye: A review of ophthalmic manifestations of COVID-19". Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 69 (3): 488–509. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_297_21. PMC 7942063. PMID 33595463.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - "ICMR releases diagnosis and management guidelines for COVID-19-associated Mucormycosis". Firstpost. 2021-05-17.
The purpose of Wikipedia problem templates is to highlight issues which Wikipedia editors could possibly address. While I agree that the existence of more research would be useful, the non-existence of additional medical reviews is not an issue requiring action from Wikipedia editors.
I encourage anyone to re-add this template after a while when there are sources to cite, and when this article is out of date. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Inadequate sterilization[edit]
There is some talk that poor sterilization of equipment, perhaps the cotton swabs used to test for COVID, are driving this outbreak. The sources are sketchy right now, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Should this be included in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Abductive: Maybe, source? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-are-nasal-swabs-used-in-covid-testing-behind-the-outbreak-of-black-fungus/383370, https://www.gulte.com/trends/88738/black-fungus-nose-swabs-of-rt-pcr-test-could-be-a-reason, it makes sense because the people are getting it in their noses and sinuses, and having to have their eyes removed. Abductive (reasoning) 13:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Outlook (Indian magazine) I know to do original journalism; the other source I have never heard of and seems to be a press aggregator. With how quickly this condition has spread I understand why some information needs to come from faster news media rather than only slower medical sources. I suppose just do not definitely say what the cause is, and instead say something like "News media sources found inadequate sterilization in some clinics and considered whether equipment contamination could be a cause of the spread." I am not sure what is happening here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- From the referenced Wikipedia article, it sounds like black fungus infection was already most common in the respiratory tract before COVID-19. Presumably the fungal material is just easy to inhale, and the association with COVID-19 testing could easily be a baseless rumor. gulte.com seems to be an entertainment site, and outlook.com seems to be for a travel magazine. Neither cites specific people as sources for this article or any evidence that would support swabs as a fungal source instead of general exposure in the environment. These are red flags; I would dismiss these stories as rumor-fueled clickbait and wait for more reliable medical sources. Publishing unfounded rumors could endanger readers' health, for example if it makes them afraid of getting a COVID-19 test. -- Beland (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Outlook (Indian magazine) I know to do original journalism; the other source I have never heard of and seems to be a press aggregator. With how quickly this condition has spread I understand why some information needs to come from faster news media rather than only slower medical sources. I suppose just do not definitely say what the cause is, and instead say something like "News media sources found inadequate sterilization in some clinics and considered whether equipment contamination could be a cause of the spread." I am not sure what is happening here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-are-nasal-swabs-used-in-covid-testing-behind-the-outbreak-of-black-fungus/383370, https://www.gulte.com/trends/88738/black-fungus-nose-swabs-of-rt-pcr-test-could-be-a-reason, it makes sense because the people are getting it in their noses and sinuses, and having to have their eyes removed. Abductive (reasoning) 13:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)