Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

[edit]

Changing this:

"A low level of blood lymphocytess may result from the virus acting through ACE2-related entry into lymphocytes.[157]"

to the following:

"COVID-19 can lower lymphocyte presence in blood and can be a valuable prognostic marker. This lymphopenia may be caused by several factors, including at least lymphocyte trafficking (especially to the lungs and large bowel)[add1][add2] and possibly direct infection through the ACE2 receptor.[157]"

[add1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9050483/

[add2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473169/

The reason for this change is that there is well-recorded evidence as above that the lymphopenia is not only due to direct infection, and a consensus is not clear on what the primary cause of lymphopenia in COVID-19 is. There's clear cut evidence of it for trafficking, but the direct infection causing apoptosis is less clear but commonly posited in research. Noahkahn (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article as a YouTube "Information Panel"

[edit]

the first two sentences of the lede is used extensively as a so-called "Information Panel," (which also provides a link to the article) on YouTube videos that discuss Covid-19.

As this garners considerable traffic and even more viewer impressions on YouTube, it seems inappropriate to include the first known case being in Wuhan within that very brief opening. Similarly, the article could say within the first two sentences that viralogists from Wuhan, China were the first to publicly identify the virus. (To be clear, I propose neither be included in the first two sentences of the lede and am just mentioning that to demonstrate the potential implications for framing such minutiae in portion of the lede that gets used for fact-checking purposes). The importance of Wuhan, China to the article of Covid-19 should be lower in the lede, or arguably not included in the lede at all.

For the sake of both prioritizing the most important facts within the article, as well as maintaining appropriate brief descriptions used by off-site platforms, I propose that the second sentence should be changed to discuss the severity, ie the spread and lethality, of the virus.

If you have opposing or alternative thoughts on the first two sentences, I am interested in hearing them. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:4010:2BF9:AAE6:C475 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad list of treatments

[edit]

In the "treatment" section, image "An_overview_of_COVID-19_therapeutics.." lists Ivermectin, Chloroquine, which I know have been debunked. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @OsamaBinLogin. I've removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Reps Report conclusion

[edit]

The final report of U.S. House of Representatives on the Coronavirus Pandemic (4 December 2024) bluntly states – "FINDING: SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that Causes COVID-19, Likely Emerged Because of a Laboratory or Research Related Accident."[1]. The Democratic Party's report on this report took issue with some of its findings but states: "Today, a zoonotic origin and lab accident are both plausible, as is a hybrid scenario relecting a mixture of the two....However... without greater transparency from the Chinese Communist Party it will be difficult, if not impossible, to know the origins of COVID-19."[2] A summation of this surely needs to appear in the header given it represents the most recent opinion of the U.S. Government which funded the work at Wuhan. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
Junk source, of no use to Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the world's people don't live in the USA, the country that most politicised the pandemic. I see little value in using this information. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The report is garbage and probably fails WP:MEDRS. It is not true that it represents the most recent opinion of the U.S. Government as it is a report from the legislature, not the executive. It warrants discussion at COVID-19 lab leak theory, but I concur it adds little here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's utterly juvenile, bad faith replies like this that make people lose trust in Wikipedia. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's junk sources that make people lose trust in Congress. Per this article:

The conclusions themselves aren't especially interesting; they're expected from a report with partisan aims. But the method used to reach those conclusions is often striking: The Republican majority engages in a process of systematically changing the standard of evidence needed for it to reach a conclusion. For a conclusion the report's authors favor, they'll happily accept evidence from computer models or arguments from an editorial in the popular press; for conclusions they disfavor, they demand double-blind controlled clinical trials.
...
So how to handle the disproportionate amount of evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the committee didn't like? By acting like it doesn't exist. "By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced," the report argues. Instead, it devotes page after page to suggesting that one of the key publications that laid out the evidence for a natural origin was the result of a plot among a handful of researchers who wanted to suppress the idea of a lab leak. Subsequent papers describing more extensive evidence appear to have been ignored.
Meanwhile, since there's little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times.

— The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FOIA documents show that Dr. Fauci was concerned it was a lab leak even before it made news. Is he now a bad source? 50.107.31.239 (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having concern is not the same as certainty. Peaceray (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's what scientists do; they have hypotheses, test them against evidence, and form conclusions. Fauci and other virologists went through this process in 2020; the conspiracy theorists OTOH omit the science stage and adopt a belief-based approach. This is sourced/covered in our lab leak article. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article with regard to origin, is so utterly outdated and absurd it should be deleted and restarted with the point of view of the gain of function lab leak fact.
Why would anyone still use the "bat excuse" when we know better... Unless there is some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci.
Read' Rand Paul
Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up
And now "Talk" is subject to censorship?
btw, the persistent use of the term "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative for other scientific views is notable. The only "conspiracy theory" I see anymore after FOIA revealed early interchanges of the principles is that CV wasn't gain of function and magically came from animals when principles said (early on) that wasn't possible. Ecgberht1 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds does this constitute WP:SOAPBOXing yet? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because facts re: FOIA revelations, and a reference are provided. Ecgberht1 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this constitutes soapboxing. It's also an NPA violation, accusing editors of some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci. You're really pushing it here, and I highly suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Key word, "unless" (which you omit). That's NOT an accusation unless you identify with it. Ecgberht1 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about the persistent use of "conspiracy theory" for the presentation of any information that challenges the orthodoxy of "animal VIRUS"? Would that be considered NPA? Ecgberht1 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

[edit]

You guys should reflect a bit on why people aren't donating to Wikipedia as much as you hoped they would, and whether your censorship and political bias in the past has anything to do with that. Good luck. 71.38.187.20 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The people who write the articles are all WP:VOLUNTEERS. Also, I haven't heard anything indicating that there is any problem along the lines of "people are donating as much as you hoped". As far as I know, this donation campaign is doing okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 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. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19&oldid=1266031220"