Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Based on this source from an epidemiological journal, the structure used to report on a virus such as SARS-CoV-1 (which is a good reference since many year have passed since its outbreak, so it would more closely resemble an enciclopedic treatment) is the following:

1) Introduction

2) Taxonomy and virology of SARS-CoV

3) Viral life cycle

4) Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus

5) Epidemiological characteristics

6) Clinical features

7) Histopathological changes of SARS

8) Pathogenesis, immune response, and host susceptibility

9) Laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV infection

10) Clinical management and antivirals

11) Infection control and laboratory safety

12) Passive immunization and development of a SARS-CoV vaccine

13) Animal models and animals susceptible to SARS-CoV

14) Should we be ready for the reemergence of SARS?

I hereby ask if this source is an appropiate MEDRS (there has been heated edit discussions in other pages suggesting the mandatory use of MEDRS to source information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2). If the source is ok, we can easily provide a weight analysis, based on count of words or paragraphs, for each of the 14 sections, in order to have an idea of the appropiate length of the origin section (in this case it is section 4: "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus)". Forich (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source would meet the

WP:MEDORDER

) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure.

So again, what specific information about SARS-CoV-2 related to animal reservoirs and zoonosis do you think this article is missing, and why does the current article structure make their addition inappropriate? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bakkster Man,

why doesn't a discussion of reservoirs belong underneath a virology sub-heading, and what are examples of zoonotic ramifications which don't fit as part of virology? Ideally some example sources that the information you think should be added but doesn't fit the current article structure might be helpful for understanding the need for the structural change.

On the one hand, according to the example source I provided (Cheng et al. 2007), a "taxonomy and virology" section typically includes information on the relation between being in a family of viruses and causing certain diseases, and how isolation and sub culture can be achieved, among other details. On the other hand, a section on "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus" typically includes information on year of emergence, place where the early outbreak ocurred, evidence of earlier cases from retrospective surveillance studies, and candidates considered to be intermediate species, among other details. In the current structure, the virology aspects are mixed with the "reservoir and zoonotic origin", because they are placed together in the same section. To be precise, the main section is called "Virology" and one of its subheadings is "reservoir and zoonotic origin". I propose to create a section called "Origin and evolutionary history" or a similar name, where we move the most if not all of the information of the subheading "reservoir and zoonotic origin". Forich (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forich's almost sole purpose on Wikipedia over the past year has been to push for the credibility of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory, which is probably what he is trying to do here. I don't see why we should restructure the entire article around the the structure of a particular research paper anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something along these lines, hence my focus on what exactly the goal is and suitable sources that would fit here. If there aren't any, it's not worth it. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bakkster Man,

wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style (WP:MEDORDER) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure.

Thanks for the wiki source, I was not aware of it and will read it before commenting further. Forich (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakkster Man, the guidelines that you linked (WP:MEDORDER) do not have a specific stucture suggested for viruses, and it looks like there won't be any movement soon towards a standard (that's what I got from my interactions with editors in Wikiproject viruses). In the absence of a Wiki guideline my point to alter the current structure to mimic the MEDRS Cheng et al. (2007) stands. Forich (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point that MEDORDER might not help us here. While there may be value in looking to published sources for guidance on structure and terminology (as with everything on Wikipedia), I still don't think that wholesale copying or mimicking the format of a single journal article (no matter how good) is the right call. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bakkster Man,

If we added an "Origin and evolutionary history" category (not under "Virology"?), would it just include the resevoir and zoonotic discussion, or would it envelop the "phylogenics and taxonomy" and "variants" sections?

Based on MEDRS Cheng et al. (2007), phylogenetical information such as comparisons of nucleotide variations in candidate intermediate hosts, phylogenetic distance between strains at the start of the outbreak with later clusters, and phylogenetic trees associating the virus with strains found during animal surveillance pertain to the section "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus", which I propose to rename in more lay terms as "Origin and evolutionary history". Forich (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus" section in this article to rename. If you think there's content worth adding to the "phylogenics and taxonomy" section, do it. If it gets unwieldy and worth splitting, then we can consider placing the "Origin and evolutionary history" related content in a "Origin and evolutionary history" subsection. Until then, this is much ado about nothing. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE @Rotideypoc41352,

If

WP:MEDRS

? I've tried fixing both issues multiple times, but Asifwhale kept reverting despite talk page discussions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit war or fall afoul of the general sanctions

Can you please provide diffs or at least an approximate date of the aformentioned discussion in which you tried fixing the issue of an imperfect structure? I looked for it in the archives with no success. Forich (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restrospective surveillance in China

I propose we add this phrase: "Results from Chang et al. (2021) suggested that most of the population in Wuhan remained uninfected during the early outbreak of COVID-19. They also report an extremely low antibody prevalence among blood donors during the early phase of the outbreak in Shenzhen and Shijiazhuang.". Source here. Forich (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not

talk) 08:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

According to a MEDRS "the first known case of infection dates to 8 December 2019". Source: Hu et al. (2020). However, we currently say in the article that "The earliest case of infection currently known is dated to 1 December 2019, although an earlier case could have occurred on 17 November 2019.". But the source for this claim is not a MEDRS. I propose we stick to the Dec 8 date, as supported by the MEDRS Hu et al. (2020). Forich (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Allam (2020) MEDRS? This chapter from a 2020 book published by Elsevier is currently the source for the "December 1 with possibility of November" date of the index case. If this is not a MEDRS I propose we stick to Dec 8 as stated in Hu et al. (2020). Forich (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest two small edits to the first bullet under Variants: From: The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) is believed to have emerged in the United Kingdom in September. To  : The Variant of Concern 202012/01 (VOC 202012/01) was first detected in the United Kingdom in September 2020.

Reason: Change 1: due to the very high rate of testing in the United Kingdom new variants are more likely to be found. Change 2: add year after September to improve clarity.

Forgive me if I have transgressed any talk rules - this is only my second proposed edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDOUBTEDIT (talk • contribs) 21:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the CDC source, This variant is estimated to have first emerged in the UK during September 2020. So unless there's a citation to the contrary (

WP:MEDRS secondary sources, might be a place to dig for something meaningful), I think "believed to have emerged" is accurate for this specific lineage. I've added the year after September, and cleaned up the references to the UK and South African detected variants. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

where r0 is essentially given, consider putting r0 in (r0) as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4080:3680:EDBC:6F40:7E7:C9B7 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]