Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{SARS-CoV-2|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Highlighted open discussions

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:SARS-CoV-2#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. (April 2020)

Reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection

Currently, the information about the reservoir and zoonotic origin is included as a subsection of "Virology". This is a limiting classification, given that:

• Reservoirs do belong to a virology section
• Zoonotic origins have many ramifications that do not belong to a virology section

For example, epidemiological, veterinary and zoological investigations, and forensic sampling are the disciplines that contribute the most to scientific understanding of zoonotic origins, which is supplemented by virology.

I propose that we create a new section called "Origin and evolutionary history" and that we migrate most if not all of the information currently located in the reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection. Forich (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you expand on your two main points? Particularly, 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.

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? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you do so, could I kindly ask you please check that the text accurately summarizes the sources and that the sources comply with 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. Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

This source would meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines, as a peer-reviewed secondary source, reviewing the general state of understanding of SARS-CoV-1. But I'm still missing what from this review you want to include in this article. Because at the end of the day, it's about a different virus. You mention the categories and the performing a word count to determine the relative prominence of the various categories, but there's two problems with this. First, this is just one possible structure that this set of authors chose, by no means a definitive one (and arguably, the volume of text for a scientific review versus an encyclopedic article might not match anyway). Second, 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

RE @Rotideypoc41352,

If you do so, could I kindly ask you please check that the text accurately summarizes the sources and that the sources comply with 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)

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)

Not WP:MEDRS, and Chinese research. So not reliable for anything. Alexbrn (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Index case

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)

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)

Minor detail in Variants section

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)

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 (Lineage B.1.1.7#Detection has a few sentences to this effect, but cites news articles rather than 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)

consider putting r0 in the intro

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)

Requested move 12 March 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: Not moved, most participants in this discussion believe that the longer name is more in line with article titles policy, particularly consistency. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → SARS-CoV-2 – One year after the virus that cause COVID-19 was named and declare pandemic, it seems that more reliable sources, even for medical ones like BMC are more refer the virus aa shortened name rather than full name. I believe that there will be more opposer for that move because WP:MEDTITLE argument becaue IMO, the article's lead needs to retain the full name but article title will be moved to shortened name. 114.125.47.159 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like the process you are looking for is WP:RM, not Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 04:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Google web results 107 million vs 2 million. Google scholar results 797k vs 84k. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:CRITERIA of Consistency, current title matches Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus. Distinct from my preference on the rename for COVID-19, the WHO currently lists Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as the WP:OFFICIALNAME that we should prefer given WP:MEDTITLE.[1] While the acronym is shorter than the full title, I don't believe WP:CONCISE particularly applies to acronyms, and rather is intended for removing words while still being sufficient information to identify the topic (see example given: State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations → Rhode Island, not SoRIaPP or RI). While the "COVID" in COVID-19 is unambiguous (per WP:ACROTITLE), "SARS" is not.[2] While this direct topic didn't come up in a short move discussion last year,[3] I would propose that the use of a title beginning the ambiguous acronym SARS would be worth avoiding across all related pages. Particularly given consistency with other virus article titles. If sufficient examples of virus article titles using acronyms (especially if beginning with shared acronyms), I could be persuaded to change my vote. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with similar articles such as Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus and Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with the reasons stated above by Bakkster Man and Rreagan007. I honestly believe it's better to keep the full name as the title rather than the formal abbreviation of the name, in the same way other related articles remained with the full name for several years ("Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus" instead of "MERS-CoV" and "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus" instead of "SARS-CoV", as Rreagan007 mentioned). Also, arguments which argue that numbers of web results prove WP:COMMONNAME are fallacious, this is because abbreviations or shorter names or (even incorrect spellings!) will commonly have more mentions along the texts. I give you two examples: "Coronavirus disease 2019" vs "COVID-19" vs "Covid" (wrong spelling) gets [770M, 5970M, 6230M] results; "Donald Trump" vs just "Trump" gets [730M, 1130M] results. The recent discussion on moving "Coronavirus disease 2019" to "COVID-19" had strong support with this argument but, with the same flawed logic, we should move "Donald Trump" to "Trump" because more than 64% of all the results of "Trump" refer to (or mention) the person "Donald Trump" (WP:COMMONNAME). On this basis, arguments could also be made to redirect "Trump" to "Donald Trump", instead of to "Trump (disambiguation)", the same way that "Kanye" redirects to "Kanye West" instead of "Kanye (disambiguation)". Anyway, apart from these arguments and comparisons, on the basis of the arguments given on several discussions so far, I don't support the move for this page, nor the following move requests to shorten the name of the pages for other human coronaviruses. In the unlikely chance that the scientific and medical communities decide to do a full renaming of all of these viruses and diseases, I will be open to reassess my POV. ACLNM (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that the item that swayed me for COVID-19 was the WHO's change no longer officially listing "Coronavirus Disease 2019" as the official designation, suggesting that even they had moved usage. Here, we're discussing moving away from the official name to the official acronym. Though, combining the official WHO naming guidelines (where they intentionally avoid using SARS-CoV) with WP:COMMONNAME would suggest the title COVID-19 Virus, which isn't the suggestion here (and would also be a bad change). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Google web results 107 million vs 2 million. Google scholar results 797k vs 84k. LordParsifal (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose For consistency with other articles. If a move is to be proposed it should apply to all of them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose For consistency mainly. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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.

Isolation still not properly addressed.

The article does not address the important issue of isolation of SARSCOV2 properly. Did they separate the proposed virus from non-virus material or did they create a mixture of samples, cell culture and other materials and when the cells died claimed to have 'found the virus'? Which one is it? --105.8.4.53 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is covered in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Phylogenetics and taxonomy. We have sequenced genomes and electron microscopy of the virus itself, all referenced in the article. If you think there's something wrong, you need to be more specific (and provide reliable sources for why our existing reliable sources don't accurately reflect scientific consensus). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)