| Revision as of 20:43, 11 November 2020 editHog Farm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators55,818 edits Notification: listing of Virus disease 2019 at redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:39, 10 January 2025 edit undoAnni yang04 (talk | contribs)11 edits Remove Asian and American Women in Film assignment detailsTags: Manual revert dashboard.wikiedu.org [2.3] |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skip to top and bottom}} |
|
|
{{skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Gs/talk notice|covid|long|restriction1=Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article.}} |
|
|
{{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}} |
|
{{WikiProject COVID-19 |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject COVID-19 |class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Top |pulmonology=yes |pulmonology-imp=high |emergency=y |emergency-imp=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management |class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=B |importance=Top |pulmonology=yes |pulmonology-imp=high |society=y |society-imp=top |emergency=y |emergency-imp=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Viruses |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject China |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Viruses |class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|covid|long|other=Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article.}}{{banner holder|text=Page history|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
|
{{Commonwealth English|date=March 2020}} |
|
{{ITN talk|date=11 March 2020|oldid=945072899}} |
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
| subject = article |
|
| subject = article |
| Line 38: |
Line 34: |
|
|org3='']'' |
|
|org3='']'' |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{ITN talk|date=11 March 2020|oldid=945072899}} |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
{{Copied |
|
|from1 = Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) |
|
|from1 = Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) |
| Line 53: |
Line 48: |
|
|diff3 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease&diff=939278614&oldid=939278495 |
|
|diff3 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease&diff=939278614&oldid=939278495 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Southwestern_University/Biochemistry_(Fall) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2020-10-06 | end_date = 2020-12-16 }} |
|
|
|
* RM, 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease → Coronavirus disease 2019, '''Moved''', 12 February 2020, ] |
|
{{annual readership |expanded=C|scale=log}} |
|
|
|
* RM, Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19, '''Not moved (])''', 24 April 2020, ] |
|
|
* RM, Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19, '''Not moved''', 16 September 2020, ] |
|
|
**MRV, '''Reclosed as no consensus''', 21 November 2020, ] |
|
|
* RM, Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19, '''Moved''', 3 March 2021, ]}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|]|21,672,589}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
{{refideas |
|
|
| |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
|
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
* RM, Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19, '''Not moved''', 16 September 2020, ] |
|
|
|
{{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus|collapsed=yes}} |
|
**Move Review, ''Results pending'', 1 October 2020, ] |
|
|
|
{{Hong Kong English|date=March 2020|flag=no}} |
|
* RM, Coronavirus disease 2019 → COVID-19, '''Not moved (])''', 24 April 2020, ] |
|
|
* RM, 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease → Coronavirus disease 2019, '''Moved''', 12 February 2020, ]}} |
|
|
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|topic=Biology|subpage=Health|link=Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health|anchor=Infectious disease (56 articles)}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|counter = 20 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:COVID-19/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=21 |units=days}} |
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
{{section size}} |
|
|
|
|
== "Boomer remover" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 19:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is reason.com a reliable source? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I saw and wanted to possibly include this info about the IFR if warranted. Thanks, ] (]) 18:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|LaceyUF}}, the answer to this question depends on '''what info''' and how you planned on wording it. Nobody can just say "yeah, go ahead use that link and put whatever you want" - but if you actually propose an addition or change to the article, other editors can evaluate the specific change. Sources are not "reliable" or "not reliable" in a black and white manner - it depends on what is intended to be placed in our article here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 18:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I want to include the IFR (infection fatality ratio) if that's okay. ] (]) 18:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{u|LaceyUF}}, the section on the infection fatality rate already includes numbers sourced to much more reliable sources than that, such as the WHO and the CDC. I do not see any reason that an additional, less reliable citation is necessary in the article. Again, if you want specific wording to be added, it helps if you provide such. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Agreed, the Reason article is just linking to the CDC (a source appropriate for this page), which itself is a reworking of one paper using European data. But the linked article is 5 months old now, and the CDC has updated their estimates since then (which this article , as they're now age-range IFRs). As for Reason itself, here's what ] has to say on the topic: |
|
|
:::::{{Quote |text=There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. }} |
|
|
::::This seems to match my read on the article. Either way, it's neither appropriate nor necessary to quote the article here for this purpose. ] (]) 20:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
== "COVID" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ''']]''' 04:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="Asymptomatic" requires clarification== |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding data on COVID-19 "asymptomatic" transmission, one of the problems is that evidence of "asymptomatic" transmission includes transmission from people who are "presymptomatic". See , for example: |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
'''Defining “asymptomatic”''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission of the virus by infected, albeit asymptomatic individuals has been reported since the early stages of the outbreak (Pan et al., 2020, Yan et al., 2020) posing substantial COVID-19 containment challenges. The likely spread of COVID-19 occurs to a large extent via asymptomatic individuals, as these do not present to health care or testing facilities. Uncertainty about the significance of asymptomatic infections is reinforced by the vagueness with which the term “asymptomatic” is used. WHO defines an asymptomatic case as a laboratory-confirmed infected person without overt symptoms (WHO, 2020). It remains to be established how thoroughly such a person needs to be examined clinically. Moreover, the distinction between asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals is often neglected in COVID-19 case definitions. |
|
|
|
|
|
A distinction between asymptomatic and presymptomatic stages can currently only be made retrospectively, after the occurrence or non-occurrence of clinical symptoms. Recent evidence suggests that elevated serum/plasma lactate dehydrogenase levels may, already in the early stages, be indicative of presymptomatic infections and, thus, facilitate early differentiation (Ooi and Low, 2020). Diagnostic imaging cannot distinguish between the two infection stages, as, surprisingly, 30% of asymptomatic individuals showed ground-glass opacities, and 27% had diffuse consolidations (Long et al., 2020). |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
"Presymptomatic" is sometimes a subset of "asymptomatic", since the infected person "does not show symptoms" when they infect another person. The term "true asymptomatic" is sometimes used to refer to infected people who will never develop symptoms, i.e., asymptomatics excluding presymptomatics. In the ] article, it is not enough to say "asymptomatic", since we are referring to infected people who will never develop symptoms, specifically, and are excluding presymptomatic people. To avoid the terms "presymptomatic" and "true asymptomatic", it is better to define exactly the groups we are talking about (e.g., "infected people who will never develop symptoms"). If you want to keep "asymptomatic", then we need to define it, which is what researchers are asking for from even case study reports. ] (]) 22:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Courtesy ping''': {{ping group|other editors that I have seen tweak terminology|MartinezMD|Gerald Waldo Luis}} |
|
|
:{{Small|I should've added {{dif|986118062|in my edit summary}} that I gave "asymptomatic" a definition in addition to the revert.}} |
|
|
:{{U|TechnophilicHippie}}, I went by the Misplaced Pages article ], which has the bullet point: {{tq| may develop symptoms later and only then require treatment}}, which implies that presymptomatic people are included. We could also reverse the order of the two's mentions ("asymptomatic" before "presymptomatic") for a top-down approach from generality to specificity. |
|
|
:{{Bang}} This also leads into me starting a conversation about ''how'' simple the article content should be made. A ] of this article exists (which unfortunately gets less traffic than this one), so I believe we can afford to add medical terms (that are appropriately wikilinked). A question that I think will help everyone decide on the level of terminology use and definitions given is: {{xtn|Who is this article intended for?}} It seems many of the editors who maintain this article feel that people who are ESL should be considered. As this article focuses on an urgent life-threatening disease and receives many daily page views, I personally see no problem with spelling terms out more than in other articles. —] ( ] • ] ) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think the way the article is currently phrased, with the initial explanation of asymptomatic is good, as it is used subsequently in the article. The article on asymptomatic imho excellently describes the meaning and is far better than anything we could add to this article. We should not reduce the reading level of the article as by definition it is a complex topic and would detract from its value. The technical terms are linked for further reading if the reader isn't clear on a meaning. If not, should we add full definitions for septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pandemic, aerosols, etc - all undefined terms in the article? Some degree of reader effort is expected. If they want simple they can read the CDC summary. ] (]) 01:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::When you go down to the Transmission section of the article, it says, "It can transmit when people are symptomatic, also for up to two days prior to developing symptoms, and even if a person never shows symptoms." The subsection clearly communicates the idea without the word "asymptomatic" (although it says "symptomatic"), and "never shows symptoms" is clearly referring "true asymptomatic" rather than including presymptomatic people. Can we use the same clever phrasing? The reason why I think we should put more effort into clarifying transmission is because there is a lot of misunderstanding about transmission in particular, where stores focus on disinfecting surfaces multiple times a day and offer this effort as a safety guarantee for customers entering the store. Schools focus on hiring janitors to deep-clean classrooms every day. However, this does not make things safe, because it's not the main way it spreads. My concern is not that someone would find Misplaced Pages too hard and decide to go to the CDC site instead (what type of person would fit this profile?), but that someone would find Misplaced Pages too hard and go to Facebook instead for information. See ]. ] (]) 02:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is not just ESL people who should be considered, but people who are sufficiently literate in English, but not literate in science, where sending them to Simple Misplaced Pages would be condescending. If a native English speaker thinks that scientists should look into researching using disinfectant to cure a person infected with the coronavirus, then they seem to not have a basic understanding that human beings are made of cells, etc. People who think 5G causes the coronavirus seem to be literate enough in English, but lack a very basic understanding of biology and technology. ] (]) 02:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Alright, what we're discussing then is different from a definition and instead clarifying a disease course and how it has been portrayed by different reports in the media (and the initial understanding of the medical community). So it's not just the term, but how it has been sometimes incorrectly or incompletely described. I can support expanding that idea, but it needs to be phrased well. ] (]) 03:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] Deeper than that, there was no scientific consensus at the beginning of the epidemic that the virus was transmitted via fomites, as the problem back then was not enough data. The WHO appeared to recommend ] for hospital PPE due to lack of information, as there was no reason to make an extraordinary claim/recommendation to use ] without evidence. As shown in the image inline, droplet precautions assume fomite transmission out of an abundance of caution. Health authorities of UN member countries just parrot whatever the WHO says, since they themselves don't have more information, which led to the public perception that "scientists" thought the disease spread via fomites. However, it was never the scientific community--some of whom tried to desperately tell the WHO that there was evidence of airborne transmission--that made such a conclusion. Health authorities didn't make this conclusion either, but they needed to decide on transmission precautions to recommend to hospitals to prevent healthcare workers from working without PPE. The end result of this mess of transmission precautions taken out of context and poor communication is that there is public distrust of "science". What I hope is for Misplaced Pages to communicate actual science better than health authorities (giving out mindless instructions), possibly hinting at the actual ] people use to learn about the world, so that people understand that it's not about "the government is telling me what to do". Maybe I need to start a new subsection of the talk page to communicate this broader idea, since it's not really just about the word "asymptomatic". ] (]) 00:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::] might be the relevant guideline here. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 22:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thank you for this: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." ] (]) 23:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with Martinez MD in many ways. We don't need a lot of clarification, we link to respective articles instead if the readers wants to know more about it. Why should we make all "hard" terms ESL-level? The Simple English Misplaced Pages will do its job on that. Sure we shouldn't make articles overly technical, but this article is already good enough and not very technical. Like I said previously, if we're to make all terms simple, we should say stuff like "COVID-19 is a ] that ] and ] caused by ], which has ]. When getting it, people may experience fever, cough, excessive yawning, hardness to breathe, and unable to smell and taste. After getting it, these effects may last for one to fourteen days. Some do not feel anything, while others get their lungs inflammated, possibly added with psychological reactions to proteins, inability of multiple organs, pressure in the blood, and coagulation of the blood." |
|
|
:Look at ]. "Some studies estimated that the actual number of cases including '''asymptomatic''' and mild cases could be 700 million to 1.4 billion people—or 11 to 21 percent of the global population of 6.8 billion at the time." Seriously, why should we define such a simple term ''in a lead''? ''']]''' 08:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Gerald Waldo Luis}}, where else would we define simple terms, but ''in the lead''? See ]: <blockquote>It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them.</blockquote> |
|
|
::<blockquote>In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols. Mathematical equations and formulas should be avoided when they conflict with the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader.</blockquote> |
|
|
::My main objection to your over-simplified/satirical lead is that there is loss of information and/or inaccuracies. If there are two ways of saying the same thing without loss of information, is is better to say it in the simpler way. By the way, an ] of one to fourteen days does not mean, "After getting it, these effects may last for one to fourteen days." Your error supports the importance of explaining what terms mean, and that linking to the concept is not enough. The reader may misunderstand what is said and not click on the link to read more, because they already made up their mind that they understood what was being said. ] (]) 23:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined." Is the word "asymptomatic" really ''that'' uncommon that we need to define what it is in the lead? I find ARDS, septic shock, and blood clots to be a harder terminology. Asymptomatic is one of the most general terminologies I can think of. Just look at the many pandemic articles and you can spot so many "hard" words there. We don't nessecarily have to make ALL medical terms simple— I love making things a little difficult, that way the readers can learn new things and the Misplaced Pages article can have more influence to his education. ''']]''' 00:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*Oops, I didn't realize there was this discussion when I just . Thanks, {{u|Tenryuu}}, for the pointer. I don't feel qualified to wade too deeply into this, but my main request would be to try to make the lead flow a little more smoothly than it currently does with the parentheticals. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 22:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*Right now I think the point of contention is how much we want readers to click to other articles. I personally would prefer to use more concise wording (less is more!); just the wikilink should be fine, especially if readers have enabled "Navigational popups". I think we're extending a lot of leeway in comparison to similar articles as it is. I can see where {{U|TechnophilicHippie}} is going with wikilinking a definition of the term, but if the term is used further down I think it should be explicitly mentioned as soon as possible. —] ( ] • ] ) 23:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a medical article, and it has a specific set of writing guidelines for technical words - see ]. I suggest the editors take time to look it over again if it's been a while. "Encyclopedic writing will naturally teach the reader new words and help them build confidence with harder ones. While this can be done explicitly, with definitions in parenthesis for example, the most natural way to achieve this is to use the idiomatic words, the "proper" words for something, in context. Good writing will allow the reader to pick up enough of the meaning from this context... When mentioning technical terms for the first time, also provide a short plain-English explanation if possible. If the concept is too elaborate for this, wikilink to other articles (or Wiktionary entries)." ] (]) 01:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:]: "Is it a term a doctor will have to use with their patient when talking about this subject, or just something only doctors would say or write among themselves?" It is not a term a doctor will have to use with their patient, since a doctor does not ask their patient, "When did you become symptomatic?" It is a term doctors would say and write among themselves. |
|
|
:]: "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." |
|
|
:] (]) 16:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|TechnophilicHippie}}, how is "asymptomatic" "new and specialized" in a unique way? It's one of the easiest medical term I could think of, besides disease and virus. ''']]''' 17:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ok, it seems like ] is being interpreted differently and that there are currently two prevailing stances of how terminology should be addressed: |
|
|
:*Use only wikilinks for terminology and have the article written such that context will inform the reader. |
|
|
:*Simplify all terminology and do not use them if possible to allow the reader to stay on this page. |
|
|
:On one hand, some of us on here may be influenced by our knowledge of terminology; I personally had no problem understanding that the prefix "a-" means "without", and combining it with "symptomatic" means "without symptoms". That does not mean that my peers necessarily will, so I can see where {{U|TechnophilicHippie}} is coming from. On the other hand, a lot of writing (and reader fatigue) can be reduced if the specialised terms are used, and the reader can follow along the article with a general understanding per {{U|MartinezMD}}. I think there's a case to be made here to ], as the subject is currently prevalent worldwide and knowledge about the disease can affect how it spreads. |
|
|
:Some questions we should probably ask ourselves and come up with answers we can agree upon: |
|
|
:*'''Who should this article be intended for?''' The more specific, the better. Is it intended for those who graduated high school or had dabbled a little in post-secondary education? Would the reader be more likely to be hurried while reading this or calmer? |
|
|
:*'''What's our goal to the reader?''' What (at the very least) do we want them to take away from this article, and at what point? |
|
|
:I might bring this to ] for more input, or we could try polling random (active) Wikipedians to take a look at the current article and get their thoughts on it. —] ( ] • ] ) 21:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm not sure I see a dilemma here. We are following medmos as far as I can tell. In the lead we use plain language explanation and introduce the term as required. In subsequent uses, we are using the term alone. Is someone suggesting removing it? ] (]) 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is in regards to the {{dif|986117258|revision}} that spawned this thread. —] ( ] • ] ) 22:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I consider asymptomatic a relatively generic term (since its use has expanded outside medicine), and able to be inferred from context, but you can make an argument it isn't. We just seem to be making a tempest in a teapot lol. So back to my current point, is someone arguing against the current phrasing? Because otherwise this section is moot, no? And to avoid continuing an already very long discussion, I wouldn't oppose reverting back to your phrasing. I just don't want to see every relatively direct term (like pandemic for example) require a definition. ] (]) 23:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::My understanding is that {{u|Gerald Waldo Luis}} wants to remove the current short explanation of "asymptomatic" based on his edit history and comments here. ] (]) 00:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Tenryuu}}, to clarify, earlier this month, my elderly mother, who lives by herself, informed me that she went to the hair salon to get a haircut. She told me that it was safe, because they used disposable gowns. I had a call with her to establish a baseline of mutual understanding about COVID-19, asking, "Do you agree that COVID-19 can be spread by people who are asymptomatic?", to which she replied, "What does that mean?" (She is knows that the "a" prefix means "without", but she never heard of the word "symptomatic".) I also found out that she thinks a virus is a very small animal that needs food and water, and she thought that the coronavirus doesn't survive very long on surfaces due to starvation from lack of food. My attempt to explain what a virus is wasn't very clear, including saying things like "it's not alive, but it's not dead", and showing her a picture of a bacteriophage. However, I could easily explain that "asymptomatic means they don't have any symptoms". She is regularly on Facebook and knows what Misplaced Pages is, but her Facebook friends also seem to have zero understanding of science and a very poor understanding of COVID-19. She is still a lot more educated than the elderly parents of my peers, who believe a lot of harmful pseudoscientific misinformation from social media. My point is that Misplaced Pages is not for "our peers" (people who are similar to us), but for "everyone" (or as general an audience as possible without information loss). I can do nothing but wikilink to ], but the short explanation of ] was supposed to be an easy win. ] (]) |
|
|
:::Misplaced Pages solves this by linking to ]. When I don't understand a certain term, I go to the article it is wikilinked to and read the first sentence. I'm all of having articles accessible, but other than serving nothing to disabled individuals, a short explanation in a summary is annoying to a lot of people. Similar to how citation overkill may be benefitial to fact-checkers, but it looks ugly and annoying to many. How hard it is to click that link? Similar to direct interaction: you say "asymptomatic." She doesn't understand and she asks you. Then you explain it to her. Reading a medicine-related article requires initiative-- if you wanna fact-check a stance, you go to the citation, the citation doesn't go to you. Everyone has different levels of knowledge; don't expect an article to fit to everyone's level of knowledge. ''']]''' 12:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Who is the lead intended for?== |
|
|
]: <blockquote>The average Misplaced Pages visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. </blockquote> |
|
|
]: <blockquote>It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2024 == |
|
In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols. Mathematical equations and formulas should be avoided when they conflict with the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. </blockquote> |
|
|
A very tiny minority of the readers are doctors or medical students, and the vast majority of the readers are people who are not doctors or medical students. The lead should be accessible to the general reader (without a medical or science education), especially when it comes to concepts that would allow people to make more educated decisions in their day-to-day lives, such as, "Should we hold a birthday party to celebrate my mom's 80th birthday, as long as nobody is coughing or has a fever?" and "Is it safe to go to the hair salon, since they said they use disposable capes, they disinfect their tools after each use, and they wash their hands frequently?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|COVID-19|answered=yes}} |
|
The purpose of the article should be to give the reader a basic understanding of COVID-19, not to get them to say on Misplaced Pages or click on Wikilinks, and not to teach them new vocabulary. ] (]) 19:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Changing this: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A low level of blood lymphocytess may result from the virus acting through ACE2-related entry into lymphocytes." |
|
:] applies here as a specific guideline as opposed to a general article. That being said, what part of the lead, as it currently stands, do you think is a problem? ] (]) 20:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::My understanding is that {{u|Gerald Waldo Luis}} wants to remove the current short explanation of "asymptomatic" based on his edit history (proto-edit war with me) and comments here. ] (]) 00:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes. Because if you're to explain that, you gotta explain ARDS, storms, clots, rRT-PCR, and vaccines—literally all medical terminologies.''']]''' 04:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I already responded to that point in this talk page, but to someone else instead. Basically, the average person cannot do anything with the knowledge about what ARDS is, in that it won't affect their day-to-day decision-making. However, by knowing how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, they can make smarter day-to-day life decisions. Can knowing what ARDS is change the average person's behaviour? Probably not. Can knowing how SARS-CoV-2 spreads change the average person's behaviour? Definitely. ] (]) 04:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That doesn't seem to be a good reasoning. Rationally knowing what ARDS is can affect day-to-day decisions, because you know how severe it is. Asymptomatic is just another word, like atypical or amoral. The lead is small enough to teach primary kids about simple prefixes. Besides, we prob shouldn't make this article a decision maker. Misplaced Pages is not a medical advisor. ''']]''' 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to the following: |
|
==The COVID-19 pandemic is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission among humans== |
|
|
The problem with the statement that SARS-CoV-2 is "responsible for an ongoing pandemic" is that it is an oversimplification of the causal factors that led to and sustain the pandemic. If an infected person goes to an isolated area with 200 people an infects everyone, they are also "responsible" for perpetuating the pandemic. It is not the case that "well, it's a virus, so nothing could have been done, it's the virus' fault." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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) and possibly direct infection through the ACE2 receptor." |
|
SARS-CoV-2 circulated in bats before there was a pandemic, so the pandemic is caused by the virus transmission among humans, not by the virus' pre-pandemic existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9050483/ |
|
] (]) 19:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Note, the structure of the lead sentence implies that COVID-19 is responsible for the pandemic (with SARS-CoV-2 being the virus causing the disease). On the one hand, I think this might be splitting hairs about the definition of 'responsible', and whether or not the pandemic would have occurred regardless of human action or inaction. On the other hand, I think your concerns over those who do split those hairs is reasonable, and there's surely an alternate wording that would convey the same information (that there's currently a pandemic of COVID-19 among humans). ] (]) 14:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::The sentence as it is sounds a little too teleological for my liking. Removing {{tq|responsible for an ongoing pandemic}} should be enough. —] ( ] • ] ) 06:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I took a stab with "It is currently pandemic among the population." ] (]) 13:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{u|Bakkster Man}}, sounds a little too ambiguous for me; "population" sounds too generalised and "pandemic" feels like it's missing something (e.g., an article, but it doesn't make much sense). At the risk of sounding too simple, what about, as a separate sentence, {{xt|It is the disease of the ]}} instead? —] ( ] • ] ) 15:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think that makes more sense, but it still reads a little clunky. Checking other articles for how they handle this wording: |
|
|
:::::*"Well known outbreaks of H1N1 strains in humans include..." - ] |
|
|
:::::*"HIV/AIDS is considered a pandemic—a disease outbreak which is present over a large area and is actively spreading" - ] |
|
|
:::::*"The Spanish flu... was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic caused by the H1N1 influenza A virus" - ] |
|
|
:::::Perhaps {{xt|An ongoing outbreak of the disease is the source of the ]}}? Courtesy ping {{u|Gerald Waldo Luis}}. ] (]) 17:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Alright, so it seems that there's a trend to equate the disease with the pandemic. I like the wording for HIV/AIDS ("considered a pandemic"). Should we consider using this phrasing? —] ( ] • ] ) 18:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I agree, but the current wording seems alright as well (if a bit clunky) {{xt|First identified in Wuhan, China, it is currently an ongoing pandemic.}} ] (]) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473169/ |
|
==China Blocked WHO Investigation== |
|
|
New York Times reported today China blocked WHO from investigating source of virus origin, plus nine months and more than 1.1 million deaths later, there is still no transparent, independent investigation into the source of the virus. Can you please include this information in the article. Here is the source https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/world/who-china-coronavirus.html . Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Even if we did, it's not going to be in this article, as this article is focused on the actual disease and not the pandemic that arose because of it. Your article would be looked at more over at ]. —] ( ] • ] ) 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 07:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Statin and COVID == |
|
|
|
:request needs better sources, thank you--] (]) 19:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-00292-7.pdf <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
{{not done}} |
|
:While this is an interesting development for sure, ] here on Misplaced Pages, and ] - except in very specific and special circumstances, which this isn't in my opinion. If/when the results are compared with other studies, and/or confirmed in whole or part by repeated studies, they will be covered with reviews/meta-analyses/guidelines and at that point the evidence is considered "solid enough" for Misplaced Pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 17:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== House of Reps Report conclusion == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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."<ref></ref>. 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 reflecting 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."<ref></ref> 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. ] (]) 08:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Coronavirus disease 2019|answered=yes}} |
|
|
I would like to update some of the given information so it's all up to date. ] (]) 19:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''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 ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> - or at a minimum please specify ''which'' information you want changed as well as what '']'' you are basing your desired changes on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 19:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<references /> |
|
Unfortunately, you cannot be permitted based on IP address alone, so you need to specify the changes, or create an account that is old enough and with enough edits. (I believe it is about 4 days. I forgot how many edits are required, but a reasonable number.) ] (]) 19:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Junk source, of no use to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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. ] (]) 09:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Coronavirus disease 2019|answered=yes}} |
|
|
I would like to update some of the given information on Covid-19 . ] (]) 18:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''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 ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] 18:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The report is garbage and probably fails ]. It is ''not'' true that it {{tq|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 ], but I concur it adds little here. ] (]) 13:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== "While virus has been detected in cerebrospinal fluid of autopsies..." == |
|
|
|
::It's utterly juvenile, bad faith replies like this that make people lose trust in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's junk sources that make people lose trust in Congress. : |
|
|
:::<blockquote>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.<br>...<br> 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.<br>Meanwhile, since there's little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times. |
|
|
:::</blockquote> — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::FOIA documents show that Dr. Fauci was concerned it was a lab leak even before it made news. Is he now a bad source? ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Having concern is not the same as certainty. ] (]) 06:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::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. ] (]) 07:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::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. ] (]) 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::@] does this constitute ]ing yet? ]. '']'' ''<sub><small>]</small></sub>'' 02:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No, because facts re: FOIA revelations, and a reference are provided. ] (]) 06:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The reference is sub-par, and its inclusion is not merited. Specifically, it is ]. If you find a better source substantiating your view, we are more than happy to review it and potentially include it. ]. '']'' ''<sub><small>]</small></sub>'' 20:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yes, this constitutes soapboxing. It's also an NPA violation, accusing editors of {{tq|some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China or Fauci}}. You're really pushing it here, and I highly suggest you ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Key word, "unless" (which you omit). That's NOT an accusation unless you identify with it. ] (]) 18:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No, that's not how language works. Drop it. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You first. Language does not "work" by using straw men and misquoting others. Seeking sanctions for your violation of NPA. ] (]) 20:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::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? ] (]) 19:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Is there any instance of that where the use of "conspiracy theory" is not in reference to sources characterizing the theory as such? ] ] 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::There's a whole article on it wrt CV. |
|
|
::::::::: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/COVID-19_misinformation ] (]) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Okay, yeah, if you don't stop with such loaded language and bludgeoning, we'll have to seek sanctions to have you barred from this topic. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::That's your solution for not having a response. Seeking sanctions for harassment as well. ] (]) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Hey bud, if you've been offended by anything I've written then I'm sorry you have been. What I suggest is that before spouting "subpar" and claiming "bias"about a reference you know nothing about, you actually read the book. You can get it free on Hoopla, it's loaded with solid evidence for the lableak theory and details why the natural development in animals is impossible. You can skip right to chapter 4, but I encourage starting at the beginning. |
|
|
:::::::::I hope you have sufficient interest in the science to explore it. ] (]) 04:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::And this is just condescending as fuck. ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Thinking about it, no, I do have to demolish your "reference." It is by ], an '''opthamologist''' who has no background in viral pathology who, when faced with changes in the certification for his practice, chose to create his own ''unaccredited'' board to give himself a "certification" just to spite the real one. Then let it fall apart when he moved into politics. The man's a con artist with no qualifications in this area, so attempting to push him as some kind of expert on this topic is daft. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I know enough about immunology and pathology to understand that Rand Paul's conclusions are inconsistent with existing literature (], at that). The solid evidence you speak of is, at best, speculation. Bats have been well known throughout history to be hot breeding grounds for viruses and other nasty pathogens, and although ] is usually uncommon, that is not to say it is ''impossible''. There is significant misinterpretation and misconstruing of statistics that have been weaponised by certain people to serve a political purpose. I do believe one of the arguments for the lab leak theory is the CGG codon argument, with proponents arguing that such a rare combination of two sequential codons being a "tell-tale" sign of genetic engineering. Well, yes, it is rare in nature, but again, not impossible. It is important to remember lots of things in nature happen (and don't happen) because things line up (or don't). ] often leads people to draw connections between things that do not necessarily exist. It is sub-par because it is written with an ulterior motive, that is, to signal his virtue that he is standing for what is "right" and uncovering the "truth", whatever that means to his voters. You are being conned. ]. '']'' ''<sub><small>]</small></sub>'' 00:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2024 == |
|
Hi. This sentence seems misleading to me, as it implies that no virus has been detected in living humans (in my opinion). However, the following publications report cases of the virus being found in the cerebrospinal fluid of living patients after a lumbar puncture : |
|
|
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220301958 / https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9309811827205810083&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 |
|
|
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/ene.14536?casa_token=K6WQ1dmSPjYAAAAA:EYW8n306odmQP07VdT1SbHgiJto-IzwiNBCZehppwXpGuPEmye2Gw-aL4EozPgA9QaGkgU0jWfTgyO8 / https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3061857122547394695&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|COVID-19|answered=yes}} |
|
Best, J. |
|
|
|
You guys should reflect a bit on why people aren't donating to Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 23:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
--] (]) 22:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|JBchrch}}, thanks for the publications. They do not appear to be secondary sources and with ] being scrutinised on this article, we might not be able to use them as they are until they're discussed in another source. {{U|MartinezMD}}, thoughts? —] ( ] • ] ) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The phrasing is a bit awkward, but it's what we went with at the time. We can use the case report simply as an observational source in the living but not make any inferences about it since there are no secondary sources/reviews about meningeal spread. The autopsy studies would imply it was in the living person before they perished. ] (]) 23:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
:The people who write the articles are all ]. 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. ] (]) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{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. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 02:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anywhere we all are wating .. == |
|
== FBI report pointing to lab leak == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is out of date. As of today, there is official scrutiny of the WHO. |
|
with any .. what ?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 08:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/fbi-covid-19-pandemic-lab-leak-theory-dfbd8a51 ] (]) 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages is a global website, not an American one. It is a scholarly website, not a popular media news-based one. Additionally, this information is not ] for this article. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 06:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:Mind specifying? ''']]''' 09:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The Congressional push to endorse the lab-leak theory is based on an op-ed, while ignoring the actual ''science''. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/congressional-republicans-conclude-sars-cov-2-originated-in-a-lab-leak/ — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 11:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== "Virus disease 2019" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] <sub> ]</sub> 20:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
"A low level of blood lymphocytess may result from the virus acting through ACE2-related entry into lymphocytes."
"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) and possibly direct infection through the ACE2 receptor."
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)
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.". 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 reflecting 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." 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)
You guys should reflect a bit on why people aren't donating to Misplaced Pages 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)
This article is out of date. As of today, there is official scrutiny of the WHO.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
Not done