Talk:MERS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hkim188.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 00:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Zoonosis?

This is categorised as a zoonosis, but there's no mention of this in the text. The fact that it also infects camels does not make it a zoonosis until someone catches it from a camel. I'm going to

be bold and remove the category and template. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Ignore previous message - sources found. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

mers in search box

If I type "mers" into Wikipedia's search box, I see an article about certain regions of India, with an "unreferenced" box for the whole, generally inscrutable article. I would have to know to click on disambiguation even to see a link to Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus article. Due to the comparative serious importance of the virus, I think searching for "mers" (all lowercase) should at least bring up a disambiguation page directly, or maybe even better, link directly to the virus article with a disambiguation link to see the obscure geographical article. Ryvr (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lede

article on the outbreak. Editors there have been keeping the count up to date. Also well done on the signs and symptoms section. It's not the usual format, so don't know what others will make of it, but the content is good. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

User:SW3 5DL, Previous betacoronaviruses have been found in bats, but I don't now how you can say that they are not found in camels (http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/3/e01146-14). MERS epidemiology so far has focused mainly on camels. The selected lit review at the end of the most recent WHO update (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/MERS_CoV_Update_09_May_2014.pdf?ua=1) focuses exclusively on them and a prior review only linked known cases with exposure to camels and sheep (http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/state-of-knowledge-and-data-gaps-of-middle-east-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-mers-cov-in-humans-2/). Do you have a reference for the link to bats or any evidence for transmission from bats to humans? Overall, I just think the info on the possible link to bats as minor and doesn't belong in the lede. Maybe a number isn't right either, but the impact of the outbreak on humans is the reason why people are interested in the topic. Pgcudahy (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Indent. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
User:SW3 5DL Previous coronaviruses have had bat reservoirs, do you have references for MERS specifically? It's weird semantics to say that camels are infected but not the source. This isn't a parasite with intermediate and definitive hosts, it's a virus and if you catch it from a camel, that's the source. Regardless, I still don't see why the (unsourced) link between one of the isolated viruses and a bat is so important that it needs to be in the lede. And the statement that it is "derived from bats" is also unsourced. I would suggest "Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a viral respiratory infection caused by the newly identified MERS-coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Since it's first discovery in 2012 it has led to a persistent outbreak of human disease in the Arabian peninsula that has been linked to camels, sheep and bats." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgcudahy (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pgcudahy Leave the lede stand as is. It's correct. I know a bit about this field. It's bat. There is no such thing as a camel betacoronavirus. You are thinking that the camels are the source. They are the means of transmission to humans which is very different. This is not a camel virus. It is a bat virus. How the bats got it to camels is not known, but it is suspected that they simply bite the camels. Bats are predatory and will bite and urinate to mark a threat. The bat bite would transfer the virus to the camel, yes, but not in the way you are thinking. Once the camel either dies or recovers, the camel can't transfer anymore virus as the camel doesn't have it anymore. Its immune system has dealt with it. This explains the antibodies.
But the bat that infected the camel in the first place, can transfer the virus again and again and again. The bats are the natural reservoir for the virus to exist in nature. Without the bats there would be no MERS-CoV. The camels are the intermediary link for some of the cases. But in the case of the index patient there was no intermediary link. He got it directly from a bat. He didn't need a camel. The people who got it from him didn't need the bat. But without the bat, none of the camels, none of the people would have gotten sick in the first place. Do you see? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki links

Many Wikipedias in other languages have fused the information about MERS with the articles about the MERS-virus: de:MERS-CoV es:Síndrome respiratorio por coronavirus de Oriente Medio and many others --Thirunavukkarasye-Raveendran (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False redirect

Middle East respiratory syndrome
This needs to be changed back. Someone please help.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Packing the lead with links

We have an epidemiology section. We do not need to pack the lead with links to all the possible subpages of the topic. Thus removed this [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

Is this new cases or cumulative? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical care management

doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1234-4 JFW | T@lk 06:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Middle East respiratory syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

Middle East respiratory syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In need of updating?

It seems that no developments since 2015/2016 have been included into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.53.72 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, the table "MERS confirmed cases and deaths" lets us expect data up to 2020 ("From June 2012 to January 2020") but looking into the sources unveils that this data is old, mostly from 2014, published 2015. Thus the sub-headline of the table is misleading. 2001:16B8:A55:5600:9866:61DC:4427:622C (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright cleanup

Content added by

💸 02:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

v2.0 : draft in progress, help welcolme

I searched dozens of papers for key characteristics of the COVID19. I need help for SARS, MERS. Seasonal flu is just for personal reference and is expected to be removed soon. If you have info for a cell, contribution welcome. Yug (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of patients who have been infected with
SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV[1] (
)
Virus SARS-CoV-2[a]
MERS-CoV
SARS-CoV
 H1N1, H3N2
Disease COVID-19
Middle East respiratory syndrome
Severe acute respiratory syndrome
 Seasonal flu
Epidemiology
Detection date December 2019 June 2012 November 2002 Endemic (n.a.)
Detection place Wuhan, China Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Guangdong, China Endemic (n.a.)
Confirmed cases 88,585[b] 2494 8096 5~15,000,000/y
Case fatality rate 3,043[b] (3.44%) 858 (37%) 744 (10%) 290-650,000 (0.1%)
Basic reproduction number 2.2 (95% CI:1.4–3.9)[2][3]

2.68 (95% CI:2.47–2.86)[4]

1.3
Serial interval period 7.5±3.4 days (95% CI:5.3–19)[2]
Demographic
Age average 49 56 39.9
Age range 21–76 14–94 1–91
Male:female ratio 2.7:1 3.3:1 1:1.25
Health-care workers 16[c] 9.8% 23.1%
Symptoms
Fever 40 (98%) 98% 99–100%
Dry cough 31 (76%) 47% 29–75%
Dyspnea/short breath
 22 (55%) 72% 40–42%
Diarrhea 1 (3%) 26% 20–25%
Sore throat 0 21% 13–25%
Ventilatory support 9.8% 80% 14–20%
Prognostic/Evolution
Incubation 5.5 days (1–14)[5][6] or

5.2 days (95% CI:4.1–7.0)[2]

2-4 days
Onset Day 0 Day 0
First medical visit +4.6 days (95% CI:4.1–5.1)[2]
Hospital admission +7.0 days (4.0–8.0)[7] or

+12.5 days (95% CI:10.3–14.8)[2][3]

+9.1 days (95% CI:8.6–9.7)[2][3]

Dyspnea/short breath +8.0 days (5.0–13.0)[7]
ARDS +9.0 days (8.0–14.0)[7]
Mechanical ventilation / ICU +10.5 days (7.0–14.0)[7]
Recovery +22.2 days (95% CI:18–83)[8]
Dead +14 days (6–41)[9] or

hospitalization + 12.4[10]

+22.3 days (95% CI:18–82)[8]

Notes
  1. ^ Symptoms were based on the first 41 patients.
  2. ^ a b Data: 2020-03-01.
  3. ^ Data as of 21 January 2020; other data up to 21 January 2020. Published on 24 January 2020.

Yug (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. PMID 31986257
    .
  2. ^
    PMID 31995857
    .
  3. ^
    PMID 32109011
    .
  4. PMID 32014114
    .
  5. ^ "Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) : How long is the incubation period for COVID-19?". www.who.int. Retrieved 2020-03-02.
  6. ^ "Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 29" (PDF). World Health Organization. 2020-02-19.
  7. ^
    PMID 32035509
    .
  8. ^ a b "Report 4: Severity of 2019-novel coronavirus (nCoV)" (PDF). WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis. 2020-02-10.
  9. PMID 31994742
    .
  10. ^ Famulare, Mike (2020-02-19). "2019-nCoV: preliminary estimates of the confirmed-case-fatality-ratio and infection-fatality-ratio, and initial pandemic risk assessment". institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io. Retrieved 2020-03-02.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf This is a good source (Angunnu (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

https://www.who.int/csr/don/24-february-2020-mers-saudi-arabia/en/ For MERS (Angunnu (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting but wouldn't it violate

WP:SYNTHESIS? Cinadon36 15:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no abusive conclusion, just informative data. Yug (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your case fatality rate looks like
WP:OR. We should be citing what the literature reports on this, not trying to calculate the number directly from data we have available. Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations Yug (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think such numbers can be included on the page, at least for the coronavirus disease, but they all must be sourced. For example, where the basic reproduction number for the seasonal flu came from? My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Case fatality is not a routine calculation. We have discussed this numerous times and repeatedly come to that conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One simply needs a better source for ref [b]. This is 3.4% according to WHO [2], and this number is widely cited here and elsewhere. This is key number, and it absolutely must be included, even in the lead. Right now it only appears on the page in connection with false statements by Trump. Must be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article should definitely talk about mortality rates, but it should do so based on numbers given in
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bondegezou: I'am quite tired of the petty "CFR is not routine calculation". Per wikipedia :
"Case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk or case fatality ratio — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a certain period of time."
So yes, CFR is Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations. Then, interpretation need to be an informed reader about its limitations. The stage of the epidemic matters, the date, the undetected / detected ratio matters for a better understanding. This shouldn't encourage to censor the CFR routine calculation. It either fall on the reader to instruct her/himself by clicking on Case fatality rate and reading it, or to us to add ref notes duplicating the Case fatality rate article's content. But pretending we cannot do a routine division is surprisingly petty, while it also force-hand us to fall back upon outdated and therefor less relevant external sources, degrading the quality of the information we provide. Yug (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The matter has been discussed multiple times now on the main article's Talk page and the consensus is that this is not a routine calculation. It is not "petty" to respect an expressed consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I made the following change in the article: Added to the intro "...or SARS-1)" and "...or SARS-CoV-1)", as alternate names being used in the year 2020. Acwilson9 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

review

World Health Organization advisory

"The World Health Organization advises avoiding contact with camels and to eat only fully cooked camel meat, pasteurized camel milk, and to avoid drinking camel urine."

I had considerable difficulty believing the last statement; I assumed it was bigoted vandalism. It is not; it is a controversial area of Islamic prophetic medicine. To avoid this misconception, the WHO's statement should be cited, but I'm not sure how to do that properly. The WHO article can be found at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/middle-east-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-(mers-cov)

Thanks.

CLSwiki (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and thanks for finding the reference. I've added it now, this tutorial explains how I did it. the wub "?!" 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"COVID-12" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect COVID-12. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#COVID-12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There's consensus that this is the primary topic for the capitalized version of the acronym. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ngram also shows the proposed name being dramatically more frequently used (see here). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't considered the broader merit of the proposal, but I am not so confident that it is the primary topic for Mers (disambiguation). In particular, Mer (community) would appear to have a sufficiently strong claim to being primary via long-term significance that the usage claim of this disease results in there being no primary topic. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people of the Mer (community) would be Mers, not MERS. This proposal is about MERS, which already redirects to the disease and has for more than six years. I have not claimed that the disease is the primary topic for "Mers" – only that it is the primary topic for "MERS" (with all letters capitalized). The disambiguation page can stay where it is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. In that case, I'll have to have a think about whether the capitals are enough to distinguish in the case, as well about the broader merits of the proposal. The other thing I've noticed, that I'll mention now, is that ngrams shows significant, and increasing, use of "MERS" pre-2012. As such, a lot of the use that is registered on the ngrams is likely to refer to other things; I would estimate that this is at least a third of usage. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck through a sentence above because it is arguable that the disambiguation page should be moved to Mers. But my overall point is the same – this RM is about MERS, not Mers. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.
    LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support per nom. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When we add the alternative capitalization of "Middle East Respiratory Syndrome", and when we consider the significant and increasing usage of "MERS" prior to the virus emerging in 2012, we find that the Ngrams usage disparity becomes significantly smaller, to the extent that it is not sufficient reason to move. I also note that the other evidence presented, Google Scholar search results, is not conclusive, because of
    WP:GOOGLELIMITS, because of the existance of other things referred to as "MERS", and because Google Scholar searches do not distinguish between capitalizations; when I search for ""MERS"", my top results all reference authors with the last name "Mers", rather than the syndrome. Added to the question of whether the MERS is sufficiently distinguished from Mers, I believe that it is clear we are better off leaving this article in its current location. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Again Britannica uses "MERS". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, this is clearly analogous with SARS. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on

Talk:Mers (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think that RM discussion really affects this page – at least not directly, although it affects the destination of what is currently a redirect to this article. I suppose the bot put the notification here because Talk:Mers is (currently) a redirect to here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MERS&oldid=1208369259"