Talk:COVID-19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as High-importance).
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconViruses Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChina Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

COVID-19 is a disease caused by a virus (SARS-CoV-2). Bon courage (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
That is just howling conspiracy theory nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Common sense would suggest that a large proportion of people visiting the article would be seeking origin information[citation needed] Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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 ⚇♔ 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
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.[1] TLDR: the vast majority of experts incline to natural zoonotic origin. Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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'. [2] 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: [3] (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: [4]) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This critique seems just to come down to wanting more on the lab leak theory. Among
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)[reply]
Since when has 21% of surveyed stakeholders equated to "little support"? MisterWizzy (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It would be irrelevant. This is an article about a contagious disease. For information about the virus which causes it (including its origin), see
WP:FRINGE ideas surrounding "lab leaks", see COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)?[1] - if interested, my related NYT Comments are published here[2] - Comments Welcome - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sheikh, Knvul (March 9, 2024). "Four Years On, the Mysteries of Covid Are Unraveling - Are superdodgers real? Is Covid seasonal? And what's behind its strangest symptoms? Here's what we've learned". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 18, 2024. Retrieved March 18, 2024.
  2. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (March 9, 2024). "Comment - Four Years On, the Mysteries of Covid Are Unraveling - Are superdodgers real? Is Covid seasonal? And what's behind its strangest symptoms? Here's what we've learned. - Knvul Sheikh". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 18, 2024. Retrieved March 18, 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it's not
reliable for biomedicine. Bon courage (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19&oldid=1216471255"