Talk:COVID-19

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Two issues with the current page

1. Common sense would suggest that a large proportion of people visiting the article would be seeking origin information, given it's 'Topic A' of conversation with regard to Covid. But the article isn't delivering for them. The information they're looking for is currently situated so far down into the article, almost at the base, that's it's unhelpful. (A cynic might think it was intentional, but I'm sure it's just a result of one million edits and edit wars screwing up logical placement.) I'd suggest a paragraph to meet origin-seeker informational needs should be in the head. And this should be titled Origin.

2. The History section (which should be more helpfully titled Origin and History) has a first sentence which currently states: "The virus is thought to be of natural animal origin, most likely through spillover infection." What proportion of scientists think that now? There's a split that's only been widening as the FOI revelations have continued, and particularly over the last 12 months. The sentence is dishonest: it needs to be qualified by saying this is a matter of debate. The sentence also cites the Proximal Origins paper, which while critically important to cite, is now widely seen as problematic by many on boths sides of the debate. So that needs also to be flagged. In short: the article seems dated, as if it was written in 2022 or even earlier. MisterWizzy (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would suggest that a large proportion of people visiting the article would be seeking origin information[citation needed] Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper It wasn't stated as a fact requiring citation: it was stated as a suggestion of common sense, which requires none. Understanding of the difference does require basic intelligence, but common sense also suggests that rather than arising from a desire for frank, honest and constructive discussion, the reply is merely more of the tiresomely familiar, disingenuously juvenile bad faith behaviour engaged upon in an attempt to disrail it. But then, the employment of the 'I'm special' colour already suggested this. That doesn't require a citation either. MisterWizzy (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was a tongue-in-cheek way of disagreeing with your premise that "a large proportion" of people are coming to this page for information about origins, not a literal demand for citations. I do recognize that it requires basic intelligence to understand the difference; my apologies for assuming its presence. So, to be explicit: I don't agree that "a large proportion of people visiting the article" are doing so to learn about the origins of COVID-19; this was a global pandemic that infected millions and impacted billions, and I would wager that most of those people don't care about zoonotic vs. lab-leak origin arguments, but instead care about the symptoms, treatment, prognosis, and prevention of this disease for themselves and their loved ones. There is undoubtedly a narrow subset of people who *do* care about those arguments--for largely geopolitical reasons, I suspect--but they are not representative of the entire population, and I would posit that, as you yourself apparently care about these arguments, your perspective on what everyone else cares about, based on your opinions and those of the people you argue with, is not a fair sample.
Also, even if your premise is true, that doesn't necessarily mean we should restructure the article accordingly; recentism is a thing to avoid in Wikipedia articles, as we write for the long haul. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Proximal Origins' paper is only seen as "problematic" by cranks on social media, so far as I am aware; it's solid science of the kind Wikipedia likes to relay. As to the 'proportion of scientists' question, you're in luck as there's been some research on that.[1] TLDR: the vast majority of experts incline to natural zoonotic origin. Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to the survey. Of the 168 epidemiologists and virologists it contacted, 21% believe it was possibly a lab accident, approximately 1 in 5. While that's currently a majority who believe in natural origins, it's far from a consensus. Consequently, the sentence in the Wikipedia article "The virus is thought to be of natural animal origin", should I suggest be modified to reflect this, such as "A majority of epidemiologists and virologists currently believe..." The word 'currently' should be included because, as the survey makes clear, a very significant majority also believe more research is required – this is obvious given the absolute and shameless uncooperation of China in sharing data. (Need it be said: those with nothing to hide, don't hide stuff.) As for the Proximal Origins paper, it is also considered controversial beyond "cranks on social media" – unless one considers cranks the Congressional Select Subcommittee which called it 'infamous'. [2] Not a word to be used lightly; particularly in Congress. Yes, sadly the Committee is a politically partisian affair, but that doesn't mean its findings and opinions don't carry any weight, and that they should be ignored. Also notable is that the majority of the heavy lifting in uncovering the behind-the-scenes story of Covid has been done – in the teeth of the most determined opposition – by small independent journalists and organisations such as Right To Know: [3] (e.g. For a U.S. government health entity to undertake redactions of documents of this scale is an open scandal in the face of democracy: [4]) To sum up: the article reminds me of some articles penned by laypersons that appeared in the early days of HIV which conveyed false certainty without the slightest nuance; when the truth was, the facts were then as certain as next week's Lotto numbers. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some random politicians too say the Proximal Origin paper is "problematic", likely for (surprise!) political reasons, and US politicians are not serious sources for anything science-based. There are too, still cranks who think HIV came from a lab, yes. The "lab origin" is just a fringe possibility, there's really no need to burden people with it. we have an entire article on the COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just "some random politicians" who consider the  Proximal Origin paper problematic – as you well know. Secondly, to imply in a juvenile manner those scientists who believe Covid-19 may have been artificially created are 'cranks', is indicative of bad faith, immaturity, and the fact you're not remotely interested in impartial editing and the creation of a balanced article. Because of this, I don't intend to debate you any further. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scientists don't really "believe"; belief is for religions. The "artificially created" thing is an extreme conspiracy theory; a "lab accident" is the respectable face of LL proposals. Bon courage (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This critique seems just to come down to wanting more on the lab leak theory. Among WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, the lab leak theory has little support, so, no, we don't need to give it more prominence. The citations offered by MisterWizzy are not great from a WP:MEDRS or even WP:RS point of view.
On the broader point of reader interest in origins, some people are very interested in origins. Medical practice is less focused on origins. Look at articles on other conditions, e.g. measles. The origins of measles is given, but it comes late in the article. The same applies here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has 21% of surveyed stakeholders equated to "little support"? MisterWizzy (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Describing 21% as "little" is not inappropriate. "Overwhelming majority" in support of something is usually applied to anything over about 70% - so 21% is an underwhelming minority! MarcGarver (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zoonotic origin... Riiiight. Not a single mention of the lab leak hypothesis. Wikipedia is completely useless now, thanks to these politically motivated "fact-checkers". An outbreak of chocolatey goodness in Hershey, Pennsylvania... whatever could be the cause!Burtre26 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is kindda strange that there is no mention of "lab leak"; also, there is only one mention of "zoonosis". I would think these two theories should have more text real estate in this page. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be irrelevant. This is an article about a contagious disease. For information about the virus which causes it (including its origin), see SARS-CoV-2. For information about the WP:FRINGE ideas surrounding "lab leaks", see COVID-19 lab leak theory. Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viral complex assembly and long term effects of Covid

The Dutch language version of the page includes a reference to a recently published PNAS article which talks about virus fragments assembling into complexes that may help to explain some of the effects of Long Covid infections. I think that this would be a good inclusion into the Long-term effects section of this article. VoluntasDei (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be
which is primary research. If it gets picked up by WP:MEDRS sources, material on this would then be usable here. Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19"