Talk:COVID-19/Archive 19

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2021
Dear Wikipedia editors,

Greetings! I would like to suggest the addition of an additional section on "===Bioethics===" under "==Research==", given the importance of ethical and social-scientific dimension to academic research on Covid-19:

Please consider adding:

Bioethics
Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, scholars have explored the bioethics, normative economics, and political theories of healthcare policies related to the public health crisis. Academics have pointed to the moral distress of healthcare workers, ethics of distributing scarce healthcare resources such as ventilators, and the global justice of vaccine diplomacies. The socio-economic inequalities between genders, races, groups of disabilities, communities, regions, countries, and continents have also drawn attention in the academia and the general public. 199.94.10.44 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * European Scientific Journal is considered a predatory open access publisher/self-publisher due to a lack of peer-review, and was not included in the edit request citations. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2021
Change this text (reference is the same) from "As of March 2021, there is no evidence that vitamin D status has any relationship with COVID-19 health outcomes." to "A meta-analysis published online in March 2021 found that there was a positive trend between serum 25(OH)D level <20 ng/ml and an increased risk of mortality, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or SARS-CoV-2 positivity but that the results were not statistically significant due to the certainty of the evidence being low."

Add this paragraph immediately below the line above "A different meta-analysis, published online in October 2021 concluded Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms." Bluenumbat (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi   : Is the justification for including the first article (Bassatne et al) that it qualifies the strength of the evidence mentioned in the second article (Szarpak et al)? I question whether we should be referencing Bassatne when  "the results were not statistically significant due to the low certainty of the evidence". If it is to be mentioned at all, I would think it makes more sense for Bassatne to follow Szarpak.  MaryMO (AR) (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for your message. I was going to remove the content in question until we reached an agreement, but MartinezMD already removed it. Thank you Heartmusic678 (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Both are rather weak inclusions, the first especially and needs to be removed. The second I'll have to review more. Either there was a positive impact or there was not. If not, then it does not need the weasel word inclusion in the article. MartinezMD (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the second meta-analysis in more detail. It does look appropriate for retention in the article. If a better, more definitive, review comes later we can replace it or adjust accordingly. MartinezMD (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2021
change "breething" to "breathing" at the end of the Pathophysiology/Pregnancy response section Scrampea (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Peaceray (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a "2" that needs to be deleted.
At the end of the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19#Transmission There is a "2" after the sources and before the end parenthesis that needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.82.18 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, fixed. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2021
Might it be possible to add a hatnote under the Mortality > Ethnic differences heading to Racial disparities in the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States? I understand the hesitancy if such an addition would deviate from a worldview, in which case could you share other articles where this hatnote would be appropriate? Thank you! Rshrid (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your addition in COVID-19 pandemic in the United States makes more sense, as this article is meant to be not only international, but about the disease specifically rather than the pandemic it caused. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin D
is a systematic review and meta-analysis in an IM journal. Proposed text:

--Isabela31 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely worth keeping an eye on if major health bodies like CDC, NIH, and WHO update their recommendations on these results. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation meets WP:MEDRS requirements. There's no good reason to wait for WHO endorsement. Following Scientific consensus, we could add text that says that this conclusion has not been endorsed (or opposed!) by WHO, CDC, and others. Isabela31 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we can add it alongside the other meta-analysis currently cited in the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: Handwashing Prevention Section
I think the information on handwashing, compared to other prevention strategies, doesn’t reflect its essential role in reducing spread; this is further supported by new clinical research indicating a hazard ratio of approximately -50%, roughly the same as from masks. I propose adding the following to the Prevention section (based on the sources included thereafter):

Despite a shifting focus towards respiratory transmission of COVID-19 (i.e., masks) by both health authorities[1][2] and the public[3][4][5], thorough and regular hand washing remains essential.[6][7][8] With variant strains of SARS-CoV-2 that spread more easily amongst the population[9], a multi-pronged strategy is critical to preventing new COVID-19 cases.[6][10] Even those fully vaccinated should continue to take precautions like handwashing as advised[10][11], though typically the precautions are less onerous than those for the unvaccinated.[12][13][14][15][16][17]

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/covid-19-how-better-understanding-airborne-transmission-key-break-chain-infection [2] C.‭ ‬C.‭ ‬Wang‭ et al‬.,‭ Science 373‬,‭ ‬eabd9149 (2021).‭ ‬DOI:‭ ‬10.1126/science.abd9149 [3] https://www.bradleycorp.com/handwashing [4] https://doi.org/10.46756/sci.fsa.uny803 [5] JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(7):1006-1008. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.1429 [6] BMJ 2021;375:e068302 [7] https://www.who.int/southeastasia/news/detail/15-10-2020-handwashing-an-effective-tool-to-prevent-covid-19-other-diseases#:~:text=With%20COVID%2D19%20transmission,others%20around%20us%20safe. [8] https://www.popsci.com/science/hand-washing-prevents-covid-delta [9] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html [10] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/coronavirus-swiss-cheese-infection-mackay.html [11] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice [12] https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/vaccines/life-after-vaccination.html#a5 [13] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html [14] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-coronavirus-restrictions-what-you-can-and-cannot-do?priority-taxon=774cee22-d896-44c1-a611-e3109cce8eae#get-vaccinated [15] https://www.covid19.qld.gov.au/government-actions/queenslands-covid19-vaccine-plan/queenslands-public-health-measures-linked-to-vaccination-status [16] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-covid-19-protection-framework-delivers-greater-freedoms-vaccinated-new-zealanders [17] https://corona.health.gov.il/en/directives/green-pass-info/ CanadianTechnonaut (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Arithmetic error in case fatality data for males 70-79
The numbers in the table for this population are impossible. The confidence interval does not include the value stated for this group. I suppose it is a typo, but I can’t tell which number is wrong. Probably the error is the upper limit of the confidence interval. 2601:603:4D81:7380:1147:AD16:FBB0:B3B7 (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2021
The information on pathology should also mention COVID-19 associated Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41584-021-00709-9 Sharma, C., Ganigara, M., Galeotti, C. et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and Kawasaki disease: a critical comparison. Nat Rev Rheumatol 17, 731–748 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-021-00709-9 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-021-00709-9 117.194.165.166 (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2021 (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. Mention as in how? Please post the exact text you want to insert here, with references, and where you want it to be inserted, or if it should replace existing text. MxWondrous (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Variant Section Edit Request (Section 3.3)
Since we are now on "Omicron" (the 15th letter) perhaps it makes sense to create a table listing all the variants of interest that have been assigned greek letters so far. --Axcelis555 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2021-update-on-omicron Homeless Canadian (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Higher mortality risk for COVID survivors?
NEWS (3 December 2021): Apparently - there's a significantly *higher mortality risk* for COVID survivors after 1-year of onset. - QUESTION: Worth considering for the main article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Frontiers, so generally not dependable without follow-up, but you already knew that I'm sure. Worth watching for the future. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Hippos to section Other Species
Covid-19 has been identified in hippos with runny noses in a Belgian zoo. Philh-591 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"COVID" as short name in lead section
I have not visited this article for a while, but I believe that "COVID" and "coronavirus" were listed as common names for the virus in the lead. I think "COVID" should definitely be included as I believe it has been used by WP:MEDRS sources more recently. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 00:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sarcastic language in Etymology section
The Etymology section ends with apparently sarcastic language about anti-Asian stigma. It is ungrammatical and, though citing a source, is blowing one person’s comments out of proportion in a way that seems political. 2600:1700:9E29:120:20D2:C345:C4D9:F075 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. The social stigma aspects were already addressed a couple of sentences earlier, and I've also copyedited that mention to make it simpler and shorter. -- The Anome (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Omicron cases
Will we add omicron cases to the total number of covid cases since they're still technically the same virus? Beansohgod (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2021
Covid can be over end of 2025 of death SYKOXI (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ it is unclear what exactly you want changed in the article. --SVTCobra 03:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Quarantine not a prevention
In the prevention field listing quarantine is questionable. Quarantine is a measure used against any virus or pathogen, and so it's not specifical for that virus. Marty5550 (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of viruses that do not require quarantine; COVID-19, specifically, does in some circumstances. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in Section 9.2, Infection fatality rate
Under the table "IFR estimate per age group (to December 2020)" there is the sentence "An analysis of those IFR rates indicates that COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but also for middle-aged adults, for whom a fatal COVID-19 infection is two orders of magnitude more likely than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident and far more dangerous than seasonal influenza."

In this sentence, the phrase "for middle-aged adults, for whom a fatal COVID-19 infection is two orders of magnitude more likely than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident" appears to inaccurately reflect the source because the source's wording states (in the abstract) "...for middle-aged adults, for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident." The difference is that the infection fatality rate counts the rate of COVID-19 fatalities out of those infected with COVID-19, while the sentence currently in the Wikipedia article appears to be referring to the rate of COVID-19 fatalities out of the entire population under consideration (whether infected or not).

Therefore in order to more accurately reflect the source material I propose changing the current phrase "for whom a fatal COVID-19 infection..." to "for whom the infection fatality rate of COVID-19..." Fiwec81618 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Updating to see if any editors have feedback or input regarding this. Otherwise I will wait a few days and submit a edit request (hopefully I am following WP:ER correctly). Fiwec81618 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2021
Since 'covid' redirects here, I believe that there should be a part at the top of the article that says 'Not to be confused with Corvid', using Template:Distinguish. SabreOnYouTube (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ 1063767583 —Uzume (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2021

 * What I think should be changed:

In Section 9.2, Infection fatality rate, in the sentence just below the table "IFR estimate per Age group," I suggest that the wording of

"for whom a fatal COVID-19 infection is two orders of magnitude more likely than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident..." (current version)

be changed to

"for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident..." (proposed version)


 * Why it should be changed:

The reason for the change is that the current version appears to inaccurately represent the source material cited to support it, and the proposed version will bring the phrase in question in line with what is stated in the cited source. In more detail,

1. The source cited to support the sentence in question states (with the same wording as the proposed version),

"for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident..." (in the Wikipedia article for the sentence notes that "Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License"—however the current version's text does not exactly match that of the source).

2. The Wikipedia article currently refers to "[chances of] fatal COVID-19 infection," while the source cited refers to "the infection fatality rate." These two numbers refer to different things, since "[chances of] fatal COVID-19 infection" refers to the rate of COVID-19 fatalities out of the entire population under consideration (whether infected or not), while the infection fatality rate counts the rate of COVID-19 fatalities out of those infected with COVID-19.

I first proposed the change on the Talk page (Talk:COVID-19) on 15 December 2021, and asked again for feedback on 20 December 2021. Having generated no discussion either way, I have proceeded to request an edit here on 27 December 2021.


 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The single reference cited to support the one sentence covered by this edit request:

Fiwec81618 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We can't use the exact phrasing of the source. The current paraphrase seems clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t understand this rationale. Is the wording “Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" which currently appears in the Wikipedia article under the source referred to in this request an inaccurate reflection of whether or not the exact phrasing from the source may be used? Second, do you disagree that "[chances of] fatal COVID-19 infection," the current wording in the Wikipedia article, refers to a different numerical rate than "the infection fatality rate," which is the wording used in the source? Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish I believe what @Fiwec81618 is trying to say is that the source is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 already. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 01:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make the edit if you believe it's an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2022
Change 'prepheral nervous system' to 'peripheral nervous system'. What's the haps on editing these days? Need special privileges or just for some pages? Brucer42 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for catching that. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 12 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kris7535.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aweger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

CDC on natural immunity during Delta wave
Many news RSes(Reuters, the Hill, etc) are mentioning this study to state that natural immunity was superior to vaccination during the Delta surge(among other things). Does this source meet MEDRS requirements? SmolBrane (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * CDC is a reliable source. The main issue is to be clear what the report says - that natural immunity after surviving an infection with Delta variant was superior. So the mortality of having Delta must be factored as well. Too many think natural immunity without prior infection. MartinezMD (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll leave other editors to incorporate this; I likely won't allocate the time to do this. SmolBrane (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we generally consider MMWR studies to be WP:MEDRS? Particularly this link, which lists it as an "early release"? Typically I think of public health MEDRS primarily as the longer-term policy statements, with these MMWR-type results being incorporated there being the indication of their reliability.
 * I think the phrasing is important. The study does not claim that natural immunity is 'superior', quite the opposite (emphasis added): Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death. Primary vaccination, additional doses, and booster doses are recommended for all eligible persons. Additional future recommendations for vaccine doses might be warranted as the virus and immunity levels change. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Phrasing it vital here. That's what I was alluding to above. And generally, yes, MMWR is reliable but not absolute. I can support a properly-phrased inclusion. MartinezMD (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards it making more sense on COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, at least until follow-up studies reliably make a statement on the level of immunity, rather than just the case rate. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

New York Times: The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects
I think this should be included somewhere in the article:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220220171541/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html

Baxter329 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2022
Add source proceeding "whereas, the similarity is only around 38% with the M protein of MERS-CoV." Relevant citation Obama gaming (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 17:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Image opening file destination page instead of enlarging?
Hi, File:An overview of COVID-19 therapeutics and drugs.webp under the COVID-19 section when clicked on, instead of enlarging appears to direct me to the file page itself. Is this because of the webp extension or is this an issue my side? Thanks in advance Obama gaming (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

pre-existing human common cold coronavirus antibodies correlate with greater COVID-19 disease severity

 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022
Please update the following URLs in the page or references:
 * change https://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6357/1245 to doi:10.1126/science.aao4093
 * change https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/first-its-kind-african-trial-tests-common-drugs-prevent-severe-covid-19 to doi:10.1126/science.abf9987
 * change https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally to doi:10.1126/science.abb0611
 * SibeliusHicks (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't edit the article but it looks like the first and third changes have been made. The second source does not support the article's statement that there have been trials on every continent but Antarctica and it doesn't mention Antarctica or use the word "continent" for purposes other than to refer to Africa. However, it does state there there have been hundreds of trials but that's not especially relevant on its own. So the part about "all but one continent" should either have a new source (which I could not easily find) or have the whole sentence removed. korbnep &#171;talk&#187; 18:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The second source may not support the article's statement but I improved the reference anyway as it remains in the article.
 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggested resources to improve this article
Hello, I just popped in to try and help update this article. I noticed that in the talk page banner above, there is a section that suggests new useful references. The following is suggested, which does not at all seem to meet WP:MEDRS in my first glance. Does anyone know about this section of the banner? Should we remove this? Thanks!

Copied from the above banner: "The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: We know a lot about Covid-19. Experts have many more questions"

JenOttawa (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

case fatality rate and infection fatality rate among the unvaccinated
I wasn't able to find information on these rates in this article. Important would also be the hospitalization and long-term damage rates for the un/vaccinated. Social media is full of posts saying that almost everyone recovers and ignoring that this recovery rate includes the vaccinated and those who were seriously ill and those who required hospitalization and those who required ICU care. --Espoo (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See COVID-19, and note that IFR is an estimate based on cases caught. Both vary significantly, by region of the world, demographics, and which COVID strain is being referred to. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , could you please answer Talk:COVID-19_pandemic? --Espoo (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Improve this article. Not this page
Hi, found a wiki covid article. Seems no one is improving it? The talk page seems abandoned so I'm posting it here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic

Pretty sure the "history" section is way to repetitive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaphoton (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the child outbreak of Hepatitis linked to Covid 19?
I don't think this should be mentioned in the article, and we need longer to see what happens, but could it be possible? Thanks! (BadKarma22 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC))
 * I have no idea what outbreak you're talking about (is it just in one country?), but it's not our job to speculate. We report what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * S/he's talking about 2022 hepatitis of unknown origin in children. There are some citations discussing a possible relationship to COVID-19, although it's all speculative and not very WP:MEDRS-compliant yet, so I wouldn't include anything at this point. Bondegezou (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2022
symptoms regarding neurology and ophthalmology can be updated / shorter / more precise and be categorised. DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000519 Uclneaxel (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Classification of Virus
Should Covid-19 be considered a respiratory disease? Covid-19 has been shown to affect multiple parts of the body, so why do we say it's just a respiratory disease? BadKarma22 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * why do we say it's just a respiratory disease? We don't.
 * The name of the virus has the word respiratory in it as the universally agreed upon name, and we can't change that. Nor do we suggest anywhere that this is solely a respiratory disease. In the lead we mention non-respiratory critical symptoms (shock and multiorgan dysfunction), and in the paragraph describing symptoms we cover them all. Three common clusters of symptoms have been identified: one respiratory symptom cluster with cough, sputum, shortness of breath, and fever; a musculoskeletal symptom cluster with muscle and joint pain, headache, and fatigue; a cluster of digestive symptoms with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. This doesn't seem to match your concern, do you have something specific? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about saying it had mutated from SARS-Covid-2, as, from what I can tell, it is solely respiratory. BadKarma22 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You'll need to find a reliable source to say it's classified as anything other than SARS-CoV-2. We follow the science, not our own hunches. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand. BadKarma22 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Thre is no such thing as "SARS-Covid-2", because 'D' in 'Covid' is 'Disease'. Virus is named SARS-CoV-2 (Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), disease is named Covid-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). YBSOne (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent reviews, not mentioned
... anywhere that I can find (although I may not be looking in the right sub-article): Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * hearing loss, tinnitus, dizziness
 * urticaria and skin manifestations

Grammatical correction
Can somebody with sufficient editing permissions please correct the one instance of SARS-COV2 in the article to SARS-CoV-2 ?

Thank you. --173.20.216.139 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe you meant the instance in the Host factors section. I've fixed that one. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely that section. Thanks for the help. --173.20.216.139 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

New correlation found
I have discovered a news article that refers to some universities that claimed to link COVID-19 and reduced smoking, at least within Denmark, here's the article: https://7news.com.au/news/coronavirus/surprising-correlation-between-smoking-and-covid-unveiled-in-new-study-c-7745625 Now, unfortunately, this article does not provide direct links to the research it refers to, rather it only mentions it, but I have found the research paper itself: https://rady.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty-research/Fosgaard_Pizzo_Sadoff_Smoking_Communications_Medicine_2022-2.pdf.

Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * An interesting observation but does not meet WP:MEDRS. MartinezMD (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? How do you know that the news article and the research paper are not reliable, @MartinezMD? Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they are unreliable. I said it didn't meet WP:MEDRS. You should read that policy, with attention to primary vs secondary studies. MartinezMD (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a potential reduction in smoking during the pandemic fits into the categories of WP:BMI, as it seems more economic/behavioral than biomedical. That said, it's still a primary source that wouldn't be worth making much more than a passing mention about (and probably better suited for the pandemic articles than the disease itself). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting paper; thanks, 49.192.44.178. I agree with Bakkster Man that this would be better suited to the pandemic article rather than this, the disease article. We can wait for some more papers and reviews to come out to ensure tip-top MEDRS-compliance. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2022
Please, add this to section 6.8 Healthy diet and lifestyle:

"Current research suggests that regular physical activity is related with lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and lower likelihood of adverse COVID-19 outcomes (including hospitalization, severity and mortality)"

Reference: Ezzatvar Y, Ramírez-Vélez R, Izquierdo M, et al Physical activity and risk of infection, severity and mortality of COVID-19: a systematic review and non-linear dose–response meta-analysis of data from 1 853 610 adults British Journal of Sports Medicine Published Online First: 22 August 2022. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105733 Yasminezzatvar (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Does not meet WP:MEDRS as it concludes with the statements "seems to be related" and "further studies with standardised methodology and outcome reporting are now needed", so inconclusive. MartinezMD (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ I added a citation with this systematic review with more simplified language than you suggested. Peaceray (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done before I saw MarinezMD's reply. Either alter or remove the text. I think it common in conclusions to qualify statements & call for more study. Peaceray (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
— Assignment last updated by Mcollins4 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2022
Change "Older people are at a higher risk of developing severe symptoms." to "Some groups of people are considered to be vulnerable populations and are high risk. These populations include, but are not limited to, racial minorities, those with preexisting health conditions, socioeconomic disadvantaged, incarcerated individuals and those who are older in age. Vulnerable populations may be at a higher risk of developing more severe symptoms leading to chronic illness such as severe respiratory related conditions or multi organ dysfunction." TrinnyyP (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC) TrinnyyP (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @TrinnyyP, this is a Letter to the Editor. We don't usually include those based on those on the guidelines set out at WP:MEDASSESS. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 06:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: ongoing pandemic
On the top of the page it says the ongoing pandemic could this please be changed to recent pandemic. SwimmingEel (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ You have presented no evidence or citations indicating that the pandemic has ended. Frankly, I think the Chinese citizens who have gotten swept up in resent Covid-19 quarantines would vehemently disagree with your opinion. Peaceray (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. "Although we are not where we were one year ago, it is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic is still not over," WHO's Europe director, Hans Kluge, and ECDC's director, Andrea Ammon, said in a joint statement. October 12, 2022 emphasis added Bakkster Man (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: update lead with information about recent drug developments (e.g. Paxlovid)
The lead of this article still says "While work is underway to develop drugs that inhibit the virus, the primary treatment is symptomatic."

This seems out of date, given that many countries have approved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, and molnupiravir for treatment of COVID-19, all of which are drugs that inhibit the virus.

RaspberryCandy (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add info on longer-term impacts on other diseases & sequelae and update death count estimates
Info on this could go into section "#Effects on other diseases" and/or "#Longer-term effects" and/or elsewhere in the article. This or some of the studies included could be used for that:

A study reports results indicating COVID-19 may significantly increase risk for Alzheimer's disease, similar to prior studies about long-term impacts besides long COVID on cardiovascular outcomes,  diabetes, neurologic sequelae, mental health disorders, and general future mortality after COVID-19, including specific types of sequelae less commonly seen in other viral illnesses.

Charts like this one (in one of the refs above) could be useful too, e.g. showing/comparing excess deaths differences. The text should also clarify the total impact, e.g. versus no COVID-19, and how it differs from other diseases.

As this shows, "Longer-term effects" is not limited to Long COVID, which is distinct from, but possibly related to, impacts on other diseases like cardiovascular diseases.

Moreover, please update the info on death count estimates – see COVID-19 pandemic while this article only has outdated, very brief, incomplete content like:

"As of 1 October 2021, Reuters reported that it had estimated the worldwide total number of deaths due to COVID‑19 to have exceeded five million."

Prototyperspective (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2022
Add "Among Chinese patients, 2873 deaths had occurred, equivalent to a mortality rate of 3·6%" to the Ethnic differences section. There are no statistics about Chinese people.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30195-X/fulltext Kcdean00 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Quite out of date, do you have a recent WP:MEDRS study? Bakkster Man (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Studies show pollution control is the way out
Please add this information on how we may prevent the disease by reducing the concentration of PM2.5,

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/studies-connect-wildfire-smoke-side-effects-covid-19-risk

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00366-w

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35901896/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85751-z

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17215-x

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.224.27 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Water tests earlier in 2019 in Milan should also reference Barcelona.
Water tests earlier in 2019 in Milan should also reference Barcelona, even if it was later disproved (no evidence). Here's a link to the source of the original evidence. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ 51.7.239.161 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Immunity and mask mandates
Three years ago, these kids of claims were being called "fake news," and many social media websites censored these kinds of claims. But now, mainstream sources are reporting them as being true. I think this is hugely notable, and makes a great argument against the censorship of so-called "misinformation." I think both of these sources should be cited in the article.

NBC News: "Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds"

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/natural-immunity-protective-covid-vaccine-severe-illness-rcna71027

New York Times opinion piece by Bret Stephens: "The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20230222083243/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opinion/do-mask-mandates-work.html

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't meet WP:MEDRS, which is the standard we are to follow for articles like this. If media articles are citing underlying authoritative medical review articles, and those are missing from Wikipedia, we would want to update that, but with the major caveat that commentators commonly overstate or downplay the actual findings from the paper itself. So sticking closely to what the paper itself says is very important.
 * It also isn't what Wikipedia is for to actively argue for or against censorship of 'misinformation' on the wider Internet. Crossroads -talk- 19:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The actual study (which at first glance is MEDRS) is here:
 * Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3–76·1) and 44·0% (26·5–65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8–93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4–51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7–97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7–90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks.
 * Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.
 * As for 'fake news', claiming something with certainty before the data is available to back it up is indeed misinformation. I won't waste any more time arguing against a 'people said' straw man. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 26 February 2023
The article currently states: "U.S intelligence agencies and other scientists have found that the virus may have been unintentionally leaked from a laboratory such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but that it was not developed as a biological weapon and is unlikely to have been genetically engineered."

I am requesting the following citation to be added to that statement:

Thank you.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ but I also updated this to reflect the consensus wording established at COVID-19 lab leak theory. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "U.S intelligence agencies and other scientists? Since when are intelligence agencies staffed by scientists? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Page protection 26 February 2023
After hearing the news, I just came to check out the show. Much to my chagrin, there's no show to be seen. Apparently this is some special corner of wikipedia that users can't edit. (Not that I wanted to.)

I'm not saying it's a bad policy. Open editing couldn't last forever. I just thought it would last perhaps a bit longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatsoff (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * a reliable source for such an important statement would be needed (WHO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is protected as are many many pages on Wikipedia. At the moment, 3,007 of the 6.6+ million pages on the project are extended-confirmed protected, meaning only users who have both existed for at least 30 days and... made more than 500 edits can edit it. This is the case especially for many "broad topic" high-traffic pages like this, and also many controversial pages which are often vandalized.You are still able to suggest edits here on the talk page, and if they obtain consensus here then they will be implemented. As Ozzie notes above, that typically would only occur if a reliable source directly supported the statement with minimal editorializing or original research. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Department of Energy assessment
US Energy Department assesses Covid-19 likely resulted from lab leak, furthering US intel divide over virus origin -. M.Karelin (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the source, "the Department of Energy assessed in the intelligence report that it had 'low confidence' the Covid-19 virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan", which does not seem to be a position from which to say that anything is "likely". BD2412  T 05:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * concur w/ BD2412--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023
Request to add a note to the use of citation 43 following statistics on the rates for varying severity of disease in those infected, suggesting the addition of a source that is more recent, given how much more information has become available since Spring 2020. OliviaSarah11 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Funny enough, you could have done this yourself; If I remember correctly, all editors can read the source code, and the section here is excerpt (using the excerpt template) from Symptoms of COVID-19, which is not currently subject to protection. I did it this time, but you can check this yourself for any future requests :)

Also, if you have better or more recent information with adequate sourcing available, it would be great if you could provide it. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

C-SPAN Video
Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield: "Based on my initial analysis of the data, I came to believe and I still believe today that it indicates that COVID-19 more likely was the result of an accidental lab leak than a result of a natural spillover event."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EvvQ03BCZc

I think this should be added to the article.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE for this article, as this is the overall COVID-19 article, not one about the origins. Youtube is also not a reliable source. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The same video is at https://www.c-span.org/video/?526520-1/house-subcommittee-examines-origins-covid-19 SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit to Cardiovascular System (after first paragraph)
Covid-19 can also cause myocarditis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocarditis) which may result in arrhythmias, cardiac dysfunction and possibly death. (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abstract/2766124). While exercise is beneficial for the cardiovascular system, exercise can trigger fatal arrhythmias in patients with cardiovascular disease. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11420-020-09777-1). Therefore, patients who have recovered from Covid-19, should exercise with caution and undergo clinical examination. If myocarditis is found, a 3-6 month rehabilitation program should be implemented. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tsm2.247) TouroDPT (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Those sources don't really support your summary. E.g. you said "patients who have recovered from Covid-19, should exercise with caution and undergo clinical examination" But the article said: It is of utmost importance to start exercise training at an early stage after COVID-19 infection, but at the same time paying attention to the physical barriers to ensure safe return to exercise and Therefore, a clinical examination has to be performed in all individuals after COVID-19 before starting a rehabilitation program or an individualized training program in athletes.It seems the article is saying this recommendation is for only dedicated athletes and people who are sick enough to require a rehab program. But your passage makes it sound like it's for everybody. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Pregnancy response section
I propose we change the opening statement of the section, "There are many unknowns for pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic." because it is uninformative and unjustified given the amount of time and research since the pandemic began. Let's rewrite the section with the known facts, and if it there is merit, we point the subareas where uncertainty is higher.Forich (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

why is Theory of virulence in the see also
this theory has little to do with COVID-19. It's odd that a relatively obscure theory in medcine is linked to in what's probably one of the most looked at wikipedia pages. If I had to guess it was just put there by some editor just because their a fan of the idea and not for any deserving reason. The link should be taken off LJFIN2 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was added here. as the editor who added this, can you speak to this question?  BD2412  T 19:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (and others) - Thanks for the opportunity to respond to my 2021 edit - seemed appropriate at the time - perhaps not so at the moment - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/adj the edit of course - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Furin cleavage site
What is the reason the term "furin cleavage site" is not mentioned even a single time in the current version of this article? Is that very encyclopedic? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably because this is the article about the disease, not the virus. You're looking for SARS-CoV-2. That article mentions it 9 times. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2023
Minor typo. Under "prognosis and risk factors", subheading "genetic risk factors", the sentence "For instance, and allele of the DOCK2 gene (dedicator of cytokinesis 2 gene) is a common risk factor in Asian populations but much less common in Europe" should read "an allele" not "and allele" 2601:647:6513:223A:7BD5:1BED:FBBF:943B (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Bioethics section
global justice of vaccine diplomacies.

This is social-science/humanities speak and probably doesn't belong in a hard-science article. It's not even clear to me what this word-salad actually means. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk 01:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

is or was
is covid 19 a IS or WAS virus

essentially what im asking is it past tense or present tense Jatanea (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * COVID-19 is a disease caused by a virus (SARS-CoV-2). Bon courage (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Etymology Online explains:
 * of diseases, "incident to a whole people or region," 1660s, from Late Latin pandemus, from Greek pandemos "pertaining to all people; public, common," from pan- "all" (see pan-) + dēmos "people" (see demotic). Modeled on epidemic; OED reports that it is "Distinguished from epidemic, which may connote limitation to a smaller area." The noun, "a pandemic disease," is recorded by 1853, from the adjective. Related: Pandemia.
 * pandemia | Search Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com) Kartasto (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For as long as WP:MEDRS identify the existence of a disease called Covid-19 in circulation, which would likely be as long as the virus strain formally named SARS-CoV-2 is in circulation, this article would be in present tense. At some point the COVID-19 pandemic article will be in the past tense while this one will be in the present tense. Crossroads -talk- 18:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They point is, that the covid-19 virus variants were all man made according to Japanese studies.
 * In August 2023 by Japanese virologists Professors Atsushi Tanaka and Takayuki Miyazawa from Osaka Medical University and Kyoto University ignites a firestorm of fear and suspicion.
 * Japan released irrefutable evidence that ALL COVID variants were Man-Made on 19 December.
 * A bombshell official Japanese study has concluded that all COVID-19 variants were engineered in biolabs and intentionally released as part of a depopulation plan:
 * Link:
 * https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/japan-releases-irrefutable-evidence-that-all-covid-variants-are-man-made/
 * Now OECD, for example, has released the offical stats concerning the excess deaths:
 * in UK the amount was even higher that during the WWII among the civil population.
 * Source:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7vTqEmlkvw Kartasto (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is just howling conspiracy theory nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. At the end of that source is a video titled "VLADIMIR PUTIN: NASA FAKED MOON LANDINGS". Pure garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Fauci & Co.
Robin Monotti on Twitter x:

Dr David Martin, bioweapons inspector & patents expert:

"In 2011 an antitrust collusion took place between the Wellcome Trust, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Dr Anthony Fauci’s US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which they got together and established a mandate that by 2020 the world would ‘accept a universal vaccine’, quoting Peter Daszak: ‘Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process’.

Dr. Martin's presentation in EU´s Parliament:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfLycFHBsro Kartasto (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Why is conspiracist silliness of interest to this page? Has it been the subject of some commentary in reliable sources? Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

WHO´s variant of interest
Who can explain what is the variant of interest launched by the WHO? Kartasto (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * JN-1 also described here. Zefr (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding?
QUESTION: Is the Following NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding (here or in some other related Wiki article)? - if interested, my related NYT Comments are published here - Comments Welcome - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No, as it's not reliable for biomedicine. Bon courage (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Two issues with the current page
1. Common sense would suggest that a large proportion of people visiting the article would be seeking origin information, given it's 'Topic A' of conversation with regard to Covid. But the article isn't delivering for them. The information they're looking for is currently situated so far down into the article, almost at the base, that's it's unhelpful. (A cynic might think it was intentional, but I'm sure it's just a result of one million edits and edit wars screwing up logical placement.) I'd suggest a paragraph to meet origin-seeker informational needs should be in the head. And this should be titled Origin.

2. The History section (which should be more helpfully titled Origin and History) has a first sentence which currently states: "The virus is thought to be of natural animal origin, most likely through spillover infection." What proportion of scientists think that now? There's a split that's only been widening as the FOI revelations have continued, and particularly over the last 12 months. The sentence is dishonest: it needs to be qualified by saying this is a matter of debate. The sentence also cites the Proximal Origins paper, which while critically important to cite, is now widely seen as problematic by many on boths sides of the debate. So that needs also to be flagged. In short: the article seems dated, as if it was written in 2022 or even earlier. MisterWizzy (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Common sense would suggest that a large proportion of people visiting the article would be seeking origin information[citation needed] Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Writ Keeper It wasn't stated as a fact requiring citation: it was stated as a suggestion of common sense, which requires none. Understanding of the difference does require basic intelligence, but common sense also suggests that rather than arising from a desire for frank, honest and constructive discussion, the reply is merely more of the tiresomely familiar, disingenuously juvenile bad faith behaviour engaged upon in an attempt to disrail it. But then, the employment of the 'I'm special' colour already suggested this. That doesn't require a citation either. MisterWizzy (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment was a tongue-in-cheek way of disagreeing with your premise that "a large proportion" of people are coming to this page for information about origins, not a literal demand for citations. I do recognize that it requires basic intelligence to understand the difference; my apologies for assuming its presence. So, to be explicit: I don't agree that "a large proportion of people visiting the article" are doing so to learn about the origins of COVID-19; this was a global pandemic that infected millions and impacted billions, and I would wager that most of those people don't care about zoonotic vs. lab-leak origin arguments, but instead care about the symptoms, treatment, prognosis, and prevention of this disease for themselves and their loved ones. There is undoubtedly a narrow subset of people who *do* care about those arguments--for largely geopolitical reasons, I suspect--but they are not representative of the entire population, and I would posit that, as you yourself apparently care about these arguments, your perspective on what everyone else cares about, based on your opinions and those of the people you argue with, is not a fair sample.
 * Also, even if your premise is true, that doesn't necessarily mean we should restructure the article accordingly; recentism is a thing to avoid in Wikipedia articles, as we write for the long haul. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The 'Proximal Origins' paper is only seen as "problematic" by cranks on social media, so far as I am aware; it's solid science of the kind Wikipedia likes to relay. As to the 'proportion of scientists' question, you're in luck as there's been some research on that. TLDR: the vast majority of experts incline to natural zoonotic origin. Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to the survey. Of the 168 epidemiologists and virologists it contacted, 21% believe it was possibly a lab accident, approximately 1 in 5. While that's currently a majority who believe in natural origins, it's far from a consensus. Consequently, the sentence in the Wikipedia article "The virus is thought to be of natural animal origin", should I suggest be modified to reflect this, such as "A majority of epidemiologists and virologists currently believe..." The word 'currently' should be included because, as the survey makes clear, a very significant majority also believe more research is required – this is obvious given the absolute and shameless uncooperation of China in sharing data. (Need it be said: those with nothing to hide, don't hide stuff.) As for the Proximal Origins paper, it is also considered controversial beyond "cranks on social media" – unless one considers cranks the Congressional Select Subcommittee which called it 'infamous'. Not a word to be used lightly; particularly in Congress. Yes, sadly the Committee is a politically partisian affair, but that doesn't mean its findings and opinions don't carry any weight, and that they should be ignored. Also notable is that the majority of the heavy lifting in uncovering the behind-the-scenes story of Covid has been done – in the teeth of the most determined opposition – by small independent journalists and organisations such as Right To Know:  (e.g. For a U.S. government health entity to undertake redactions of documents of this scale is an open scandal in the face of democracy: ) To sum up: the article reminds me of some articles penned by laypersons that appeared in the early days of HIV which conveyed false certainty without the slightest nuance; when the truth was, the facts were then as certain as next week's Lotto numbers. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some random politicians too say the Proximal Origin paper is "problematic", likely for (surprise!) political reasons, and US politicians are not serious sources for anything science-based. There are too, still cranks who think HIV came from a lab, yes. The "lab origin" is just a fringe possibility, there's really no need to burden people with it. we have an entire article on the COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not just "some random politicians" who consider the Proximal Origin paper problematic – as you well know. Secondly, to imply in a juvenile manner those scientists who believe Covid-19 may have been artificially created are 'cranks', is indicative of bad faith, immaturity, and the fact you're not remotely interested in impartial editing and the creation of a balanced article. Because of this, I don't intend to debate you any further. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Scientists don't really "believe"; belief is for religions. The "artificially created" thing is an extreme conspiracy theory; a "lab accident" is the respectable face of LL proposals. Bon courage (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This critique seems just to come down to wanting more on the lab leak theory. Among WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, the lab leak theory has little support, so, no, we don't need to give it more prominence. The citations offered by are not great from a WP:MEDRS or even WP:RS point of view.
 * On the broader point of reader interest in origins, some people are very interested in origins. Medical practice is less focused on origins. Look at articles on other conditions, e.g. measles. The origins of measles is given, but it comes late in the article. The same applies here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since when has 21% of surveyed stakeholders equated to "little support"? MisterWizzy (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Describing 21% as "little" is not inappropriate. "Overwhelming majority" in support of something is usually applied to anything over about 70% - so 21% is an underwhelming minority! MarcGarver (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Zoonotic origin... Riiiight. Not a single mention of the lab leak hypothesis. Wikipedia is completely useless now, thanks to these politically motivated "fact-checkers". An outbreak of chocolatey goodness in Hershey, Pennsylvania... whatever could be the cause!Burtre26 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is kindda strange that there is no mention of "lab leak"; also, there is only one mention of "zoonosis". I would think these two theories should have more text real estate in this page. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be irrelevant. This is an article about a contagious disease. For information about the virus which causes it (including its origin), see SARS-CoV-2. For information about the WP:FRINGE ideas surrounding "lab leaks", see COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Viral complex assembly and long term effects of Covid
The Dutch language version of the page includes a reference to a recently published PNAS article which talks about virus fragments assembling into complexes that may help to explain some of the effects of Long Covid infections. I think that this would be a good inclusion into the Long-term effects section of this article. VoluntasDei (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That would be
 * which is primary research. If it gets picked up by WP:MEDRS sources, material on this would then be usable here. Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * which is primary research. If it gets picked up by WP:MEDRS sources, material on this would then be usable here. Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2024
change deaths to casualties Montemoon (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌ casualty has a different meaning than death. In military terms, all deaths are casualties, but not all casualties are deaths. Many casualties are temporary, but death is permanent. Peaceray (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)