Talk:MERS-related coronavirus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Same as HCoV-EMC?

• This looks like the same infection described in this poorly proofread L.A. Times article which in turn is clearly about HCoV-EMC. Are they the same? Perhaps a merger should be considered? I hope there aren't two new coronavirus strains going around! ♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Novel coronavirus 2012 be merged into HCoV-EMC. This is the same virus, though there doesn't yet seem to be a clear concensus in the literature about what to call it. WHO, for example, just opt for 'Novel coronavirus (nCoV)' [1]. --11:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)RobGo (talk). Discuss here Talk:HCoV-EMC#Merger proposal --RobGo (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Patient zero?

According to the who.int: Global overview of an emerging novel coronavirus (MERS-CoV) on 23 May 2013 the first case was discovered in spring 2012. But the article mentions only one in September 2012. Anyone knows where/who the first case (reported) were? Electron9 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. After Dr. Zaki identified the nCoV, a trace back to unusual cases reported to the usual agencies was conducted by epidemiologists. That is routine in all cases of newly discovered viruses and bacteria. They found that in April 2012, six cases of pneumonia of unknown origin in hospital workers in Zarga, Jordan were reported to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Of the six, two had died. An analysis of their stored lab samples confirmed that the two deceased patients had nCoV. It is believed that nCoV has been present for some time, and likely there have been many unreported cases. I'll update the article tomorrow. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

two recently published sources

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23718156

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23720729

Incorporate these into the article? ComfyKem (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, especially the evolutionary gap between the bats and humans. I've worked in some of it in the transmission section but it could use more. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Italy just reported first case

Bing news 3 hours ago (31 May 2013) So someone needs to update the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.95.101 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Malke 2010 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Breaking--two more confirmed cases in Florence

http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2013/06/01/news/sars_controlli_su_una_bambina_la_nipote_del_paziente_giordano-60124632/?ref=HREC1-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.95.101 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Canada

When did Canada confirm its first MERS case??? I can't find any article about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

vandalism

I've requested a very temporary page protection. The page has been vandalized several times in a very short period. I reported one IP and he has been blocked. I just reverted another IP and left him a warning. It might be a good idea that when you see IP edits, just check them quickly. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This virus is referred to as Saudi SARS in informal settings (see message boards) to differentiate it from the Hong Kong SARS.

Is there source on this?RocketLauncher2 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I Googled it, didn't find anything. These things crop up. It's similar to names for the 1993 Four Corners hantavirus outbreak. People started calling it "Navajo flu." The Navajo people weren't happy about it. I imagine the Saudis would not appreciate a similar name. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Unconfirmed rumors/reports in US and elsewhere in Europe

Rumors of MERS-like disease in Fort Rucker, Alabama; St. Luke's Hospital, NYC; and the Netherlands--don't know about inclusion in the article because they are rumors, but as long as they are specified as such, I don't see the problem in including them. This thing looks like it could get big. A simple Google or Bing search with the locations and MERS-CoV will bring up the relevant search results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.95.101 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Alabama outbreak is attributable to Influenza A/H1N1, the common cold and bacterial pneumonia. [2][3][4] ComfyKem (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring & some stuff

A few things:

• "Recent Developments" should be deleted and the contents integrated into other sections.
• "Symptoms" should provide a better explanation of the clinical features of infection, including, but not limited to: incubation period, duration of symptoms, and incidence of rarer and/or severe symptoms.
• "Real time tests" should be moved to its own section titled "Diagnosis" which can be expanded upon.
• "Natural reservoir" should be merged into "Transmission".
• "WHO urges sharing of information" definitely does not belong in the "Natural reservoir" section, perhaps moving it to the intro?
• Content throughout the article on the evolution, life cycle, replication, structure, tropism and pathogenesis of MERS-CoV should be merged into a single section titled "Virology".

Thoughts on these changes? I feel as if they are needed to help improve the article. If anyone has any other ideas, feel free to mention them. ComfyKem (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with above, the article needs this restructuring. I would keep 'natural reservoir" in it's own section as the vector is an important separate topic on it's own. It will develop as more becomes known. Transmission should be separate as this is a zoonotic virus and exactly how this virus came to infect humans, and it's transmission between humans, deserves it's own section. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Natural reservoir should be under virology as should transmission IMO. Rest of the suggestions should really good. Am organizing per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the "recent developments" section needs to go. For one it is too much detail and for two we prefer not to use news sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Could use a section on treatment and one on prognosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The taxonomy is already dealt with in the tax box. That box could be moved to that section and a infobox disease added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a link

Just a link for the sake of record. If not required, may be ignored: The Middle East Plague Goes Global --Bhadani (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. ComfyKem (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What the heck am I reading

The portion of the article discussing the coronavirus itself is way too incomprehensible for those without knowledge of biology. I know it's supposed to be a detailed discussion, but for god's sake, include some simplified statements so some readers don't feel locked out about the nature of this coronavirus. - 60.54.36.58 (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. What are the symptoms? What is the treatment? [Macossay 14 May 2013] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.134.50 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree this is repetitive not paragraphed and poorly drafted; for example the repetition of Dr Zaki's full name is unnecessary surely? This is surely over-complicated because of the competition to name the new virus which has arisen in part from the otherwise laudable international cooperation! Presumably this is now the end of the debate on the scientific name? On message boards and in conversation ordinary people are calling it simply (and alliteratively)Saudi SARS but this is difficult to cite! Why no mention of the early research about this virus being 'unique' in being able to grow in the cells of multiple species? Also the research which showed that its receptor cells are located deep in the lungs which may account for why it is not contagious? And the question of why over 80% of cases are older Arab males? Are they smokers perhaps? Given what is known already the search for 'a source' might soon become irrelevant as it is already widely dispersed. Unless it mutates or re-assorts to become contagious is the actual risk here that it will be spread globally by those returning from the next Hajj this October and hence become endemic? This article needs a lot of work - if not re-writing!Pandemic2013 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia which offers links to more information on the various subjects, that is true, but many people use Wikipedia as a primary source, High School students and College students, so it seems reasonable to provide highly detailed information, in my opinion, even though most people might find it overwhelming and, possibly, somewhat irrelevant. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent Developments

I'd like to delete this section if there are no objections. The material is good and some of it can be incorporated into the Epidemiology section but the rest doesn't seem needed. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to incorporate the "History" section, if there are no obections. With the rapid development of the article some of the material was bound to be duplicative. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with incorporating the "recent developments". A history section however is a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with having this section deleted. A sentence placing emphasis on the new cases should probably be kept and moved to the section of the country in which they occurred in though. That'll be much better than having that huge copy-paste paragraph taking up space. ComfyKem (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Keeping up the country sections is important too. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone updated the Saudi cases, so I went ahead and deleted recent developments. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose to add, under Saudi Arabia, because when another editor deleted by the edit "(Yahoo/AFP mention "allow to perform the pilgrimage", nothing about "into the country". AFP says statement was from 13 Juli 2013 and "it was not clear if the recommendation implies that no visas will be issued for such pilgrims)", I disagree with the editor's interptetation of the quote.:

As of 9 September 2013, the Saudi government asked "elderly and chronically ill Muslims to avoid the hajj this year" and have restricted the number of people allowed “to perform the pilgrimage”.

See the quote which I embeded in the reference. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Also the ealier listed website said, "In spite of having previously predicted that the number of pilgrims would increase from 2012, Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Hajj has issued a directive to umrah visa operators to "cut down the number of foreign and domestic pilgrims by 20 and 50 percent, respectively,"[5] Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your earlier addition to the article mentioned "allowed “into the country”", which is somewhat different from "allowed “to perform the pilgrimage”". Furthermore, the publisher of your first reference is not AFP, but Yahoo. The Yahoo publication is dated 7 September 2013, so that in itself contradicts your statement "As of 9 September 2013". Yahoo based their publication on an earlier publication by AFP, very likely this one: Saudi urges elderly to avoid hajj over virus fears, published on 13 July 2013, so almost 2 months earlier. AFP states that the Saudi recommendation was given on Saturday, so most likely that same Saturday, 13 July 2013. Trewal (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

To improve is what Wikipedia is all about. So, since you found more citations to support the text; lets add the text. My original cited source was from AFP via Yahoo. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Media Presentation section?

What does everyone think about having a section added that covers how MERS is depicted in the mainstream media, a section that makes a minimal effort to note that unreasonable fear and hype about the disease is widely expressed as yet another doomsday scenario? A section maybe called MERS in Popular Culture which perhaps enumerates some of the more profound mainstream media articles and videos that depict the disease inaccurately?

I suggest something like that because there is a great deal of inaccurate information about the disease being offered by media and politicians, generally an effort to pretend that we're at another we're all gonna die bottleneck in human survivability, a phenomena that cropped up when Ebola and the HIV which causes AIDS caught Western attention. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear BiologistBabe, Please provide links to the "more profound mainstream media articles and videos that depict the disease inaccurately" so I can evaluate the need for a section called MERS in Popular Culture. Right now, I would agree only to a sentence, such as "Similar to the end of the 2012 Mayan Calendar prophesies, all the doomsday scenarios are not based on science." Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Page split

This article is about the virus. It also included information about the outbreak and the disease. When the outbreak began and the page was new, it was fine having all three topics on one page. However, now that the outbreak has slowed, as all outbreaks do, and there is much more information now about the virus, it was time to separate them out. For the disease, please see Middle East respiratory syndrome. For the outbreak, please see 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak. The name on the last article is long, but this is how outbreaks are named. The date they began, the location, and the name of the virus. Fortunately, the location is already part of the name of the virus. Please don't add any more outbreak stats/information here at this article. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Affected Countries

I added a source to the list of countries affected by the recent outbreak. Some of the countries already on the wikipedia article were supported by the source, and some were not; the article was also missing some of the countries in the source. So I added the extra countries from the source, but didn't remove the extra ones from the article since they were probably put there for good reason, and I thought I'd give someone the opportunity to find a source for them. Since then, someone had removed the Philippines from the list (which was unsupported) and added the Netherlands (also unsupported). I reverted the list to what I had (the union of what was previously in the article and the source article).

Any new countries to be added should be sourced, and it would be nice if someone could come up with sources for the previously existing unsourced countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlynone (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Mild cases (and strains)?

The press has reported that there are strains of MERS that are much more mild (some perhaps even asymptomatic). I don't see much discussion of this in the article. The cases that are confirmed in hospitals are *MUCH* more likely to be very serious cases. This presents a false impression of the fatality rate -- e.g., if 800 cases are 'documented' (by hospitals/labs) and 300 are fatalities, it falsely implies a fatality rate of 300/800 = 37.5%. But many cases are not even reported to doctors, let alone tested for MERS or documented by hospitals/labs, so the actual fatality rate is much lower. E.g.: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/us-health-mers-research-idUSKBN0DW1LT20140516 >people can be infected with MERS without developing severe respiratory disease, said Dr David Swerdlow, who heads the MERS response team at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "You don't have to be in the intensive care unit with pneumonia to have a case of MERS."< http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/08/report-profiles-mild-mers-cases-saudi-nurses >the New England Journal of Medicine describes mild and asymptomatic cases of MERS-CoV in seven female Saudi Arabian nurses, further solidifying the evidence that the illness can be other than severe. The letter, by two Saudi health officials and a British expert, says two of the nurses had no symptoms and the others had only mild ones, and all recovered without treatment. Further, the nurses apparently did not pass the virus to anyone else.< Benefac (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

CoronaMap not real-time

What is the point of a real-time map that has not been updated for more than a month? MERS has spread to South Korea a long time ago and it does not even show up on that map. The section is not helpful but if you want to keep then remove references to "real-time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.207.136.103 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104184337/http://www.virology-bonn.de/fileadmin/user_upload/_temp_/Zaki_et_al.pdf to http://www.virology-bonn.de/fileadmin/user_upload/_temp_/Zaki_et_al.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)