Talk:COVID-19

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2024
"As expected, monkeys and great ape species such as orangutans can also be infected with the COVID‑19 virus."

Providing reliable sources
As written, this either excludes lesser apes or else includes great apes twice over (cf the opening paragraph of monkey), which is odd either way. What the ref actually says is "The findings on ferrets, orangutans, and monkeys showed a higher affinity of ACE2 with the RBD domain of SARS-CoV-2 S protein."

That citation in turn says the following: "2019-nCoV RBD likely recognizes ACE2 from pigs, ferrets, cats, orangutans, monkeys, and humans with similar efficiencies, because these ACE2 molecules are identical or similar in the critical virus-binding residues.

[...]

Pigs, ferrets, cats, and nonhuman primates contain largely favorable 2019-nCoV-contacting residues in their ACE2 and hence may serve as animal models or intermediate hosts for 2019-nCoV."

However, the previous paragraph of disagrees about pigs in particular: "The virus does not appear to be able to infect pigs, ducks, or chickens at all." Again ref plus secondary citation: "However, Shi et al. reported that ferrets and cats were highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, while dogs had a low susceptibility and livestock including pigs, chickens, and ducks were not susceptible to the virus, under experimental conditions.

->


 * Dogs appeared not to support viral replication well and had low susceptibility to the virus, and pigs, chickens, and ducks were not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2.


 * [...]


 * We found that SARS-CoV-2 replicates poorly in dogs, pigs, chickens, and ducks, but ferrets and cats are permissive to infection.


 * [...]


 * We also investigated the susceptibility of pigs, chickens, and ducks to SARS-CoV-2 by using the same strategy as that used to assess dogs. However, viral RNA was not detected in any swabs collected from these virus-inoculated animals or from naïve contact animals (Table 1). In addition, all of these animals were seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 when tested by ELISA with sera collected on day 14 p.i. (Table 1). These results indicate that pigs, chickens, and ducks are not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2.


 * In summary, we found that ferrets and cats are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2; dogs have low susceptibility; and pigs, chickens, and ducks are not susceptible to the virus."

Generally, translating some of the refs' protein-level results into organism-level claims like "can be infected" seems suspect.

Mentioning the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format
Maybe put an OR tag on the section?

Specifically, suggest changing

"As expected, monkeys and great ape species such as orangutans can also be infected with the COVID‑19 virus."

to

"Orangutans and other primates may also be vulnerable to COVID‑19 infection."

at minimum.

- 2A02:560:59A1:EF00:BD31:F556:FA77:6F84 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added subheadings to the OP to clarify where it's suggesting changes and where it's discussing sources. - 2A02:560:59A1:EF00:BD31:F556:FA77:6F84 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per above.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  03:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref. #298. A typo in the title of the publication
Ref. #298. A typo in the title of the publication. It should be:

Baranovskii DS, Klabukov ID, Krasilnikova OA, Nikogosov DA, Polekhina NV, Baranovskaia DR, et al. (2021). "Prolonged prothrombin time as an early prognostic indicator of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with COVID-19 related pneumonia". Current Medical Research and Opinion. 37 (1): 21–25. Biosurgeon (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * , I have corrected the reference. Please double check to see if that is what you wanted. Best, X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! However, I noticed that the title of the journal was also mistyped. It should be: Current Medical Research and Opinion instead of American Journal of Physiology. Biosurgeon (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Amended. Thanks for pointing these out, good to have people like you that have an eye for detail. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 21:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * E 176.44.52.151 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Broken hyperlink on reference 22: "Post-COVID Conditions"
Link redirects to CDC 404. I believe this is the updated document: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/. Highac3s (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Free sources for Wikipedians
The Wikipedia Library has a partnership with Wiley (publisher) to get access to many of their textbooks and journals, including some medical school textbooks, at no charge to editors. If you are looking for good sources, please consider this one:



Eligible editors will need to login at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. Under "My Collections", almost at the end of the page, find the box for Wiley. Click on the blue "Access collection" button. That will take you to the Wiley search page.

Put the title of the book into the main search box. The default search result is "Articles & Chapters", but you want the "Publications" tab. Click on the search result for the book, and then decide whether you want to download the whole book at once (huge file) or to pick and choose individual chapters instead (e.g., "COVID-19: Presentation and Symptomatology (Pages: 125-148)" or "Mental Health Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Professionals (Pages: 554-579)").

This medical school textbook sells for about US$100, so using TWL can save you a lot of money. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19/Current_consensus&redirect=no Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Wow (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Antihistamines ... prevention and treatment of Covid
Suggested edit ...

Antihistamines ... prevention and treatment of Covid

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129342/

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1202696/full

https://ufhealth.org/news/2020/existing-antihistamine-drugs-show-effectiveness-against-covid-19-virus-cell-testing

https://www.mycovidteam.com/resources/antihistamines-for-covid-19-can-benadryl-zyrtec-etc-help-with-symptoms 98.46.116.219 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * None of those sources establish that antihistamines prevent COVID-19. There are statements like we believe that antihistamines may have played a role as a preventive drug for COVID-19 which should be studied & Clinical trials will be necessary to establish the drugs’ effectiveness in prevention, early treatment and as a secondary therapy for severe COVID-19.
 * The first three sources are primary sources. Identifying reliable sources (medicine) states Per the Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, articles need to be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. [...] Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content.
 * The mycovidteam.com does support using antihistamines for treating COVID-19 and is a tertiary source. However, the criteria for Identifying reliable sources (medicine) specifies:
 * A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.
 * A tertiary source summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate- or graduate-level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources.
 * Thus, none of the sources that you posted qualify for this article. If you do find a source that supports these criteria, please feel free to circle back & post it. Peaceray (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources ...
 * "should be approved for emergency use towards Covid‐19 management at the moment"
 * Covid‐19 Histamine theory: Why antihistamines should be incorporated as the basic component in Covid‐19 management?
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9903129
 * "Antihistamines have also been shown in small studies to reduce some Long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, brain fog, and an inability to exercise"
 * https://time.com/6263356/long-covid-treatment-prevention/
 * https://www.prevention.com/health/a39122406/anthihistamines-long-covid-symptoms/
 * https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220214/Antihistamines-may-offer-hope-for-long-COVID-patients.aspx
 * https://www.livescience.com/antihistamines-to-treat-long-covid-pasc 98.46.117.90 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.livescience.com/antihistamines-to-treat-long-covid-pasc 98.46.117.90 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)