Talk:Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children

No proven association

This stub is sort of a mess. The first mention of COVID-19 states that there is no proven association, which comes across as a major non-sequitur given that the reader has, in the context of this article, been given no prompt that one might be expected. Article should mention at the outset that this specific syndrome is coming into the limelight due to a possible COVID link. BlackholeWA (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

People keep editing the article, which had been stable and accurate. The most salient factor of the syndrome is its appearance during the height of the COVID-19 epidemic, and its possible link to COVID-19. I have put that back now. The original RCP pdf is outdated and had a small cohort. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Need to follow reliable medical sourcing

@Softlavender: The problem is, that in this new, fast-moving clinical context, we find ourselves needing to provide - briefly, at least - some reliable medical information to the general public with little current availability of Wikipedia's reliable medical sourcing (WP:MEDRS), except for the RCPCH Guidance document [1]: this to be a *current* set of clinical practice guidelines (per WP:MEDRS#Summarize scientific consensus). The Children's Hospital Los Angeles information sheet for parents [2] also seems to me a useful source (or maybe External Link?). At present, the definition is inappropriately sourced to a newspaper article (clearly *not* a MEDRS).

Normal Wikipedia Medicine practice for providing emerging clinical information is to refer to available MEDRS, while awaiting greater availability of potential MEDRS.

At present, primary (i.e. non-MEDRS) studies are starting to emerge, such as this small, hospital-based cohort study in The Lancet (yet to be indexed by PubMed; the authors don't refer to the 'PMIS' nomenclature). Fwiw - Given the relative rarity of these conditions, such cohorts are bound to be small, and larger numbers may have to await availability of the sort of systematically conducted review articles which would be potential MEDRS.

Heads-up posted at WT:MED#Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. 86.134.212.26 (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved primary source

• Dallan C, Romano F, Siebert JN, et al. (2020). "Septic shock presentation in adolescents with COVID-19". Lancet Child Adolesc Health. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30164-4.

(trimmed because redundant, as cited.)

86.134.212.26 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

PMIS or PIMS

Is it paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome (PMIS) or paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS)? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• @User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa I'm rather hoping this inflammatory anagrammatic multiterm disorder syndrome (IAMDiS) is now adequately addressed in the infobox. Certainly has me confused. 86.134.212.26 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa: [3] And I used to think that PIMS was nice (sigh). 86.174.206.97 (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved diagnostic information

Better, imo, to integrate the following clinical information into sentence/s sourced with available MEDRS (e.g. guidance / recommendations from RCPHC / CDC, etc):

Diagnostic signs in a blood test include markers of inflammation and coronary artery disease including high levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), ferritin, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (BNPT), procalcitonin, troponin and triglycerides.

86.134.212.26 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

86.134.212.26 I recall that sentence in an earlier version of the article, and the problem with that sentence is that some of the details conflict with what's in the RCPHC guidelines. On page 4, the lab findings are separated into 2 lists, one for findings that are in all patients and one for findings that are in some patients. That prior sentence isn't precise in that regard. The revised sentence sourced to the guidelines incorporates only the common findings:

Other laboratory findings supporting the diagnosis include abnormal fibrinogen levels; low albumin and lymphocyte count; and elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimers, and ferritin.

Does this clarify? Moksha88 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Moksha88. No problem :-) 86.134.212.26 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

un/usual suspects?

@Moksha88 If you (or anyone else here :-) happened to spot any other significant blunders in passing, that could be really useful. Many thanks anyway! 86.134.212.26 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ongoing news

Moved from == Epidemiology == (not an appropriate place for ongoing news items):

New York City regularly provides updates. As of 17 May, Mayor Bill de Blasio reports of 137 cases of pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome.. As of June 5, the State Department of Health of New York City reports 200 cases among them three deaths. Of these cases 94 percent tested positive for COVID-19 either by diagnostic, antibody testing or both.

There are over 20 US states reporting cases. Among them Michigan (23 cases); Washington D.C. (23 cases); Georgia (20 cases); New Jersey (11 cases); Illinois (10 cases); Massachusetts (9 cases); Connecticut (5 cases); Maryland (4 cases); Kentucky (4 cases); Oregon (1 case); Indiana (1 case); Iowa (2 cases); California (4 cases); Texas (4 cases); Colorado (3 cases); Delaware (3 cases); Pennsylvania (2 cases); Florida (2 cases); Washington (1 case); Louisiana (1 case); Utah (1 case); New Hempshire (1 case); Mississippi (1 case); Virginia (1 case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.119.120 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A couple of further countries have reported new cases. Among them are: South Korea, India, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.192.164.89 (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you - that's helpful :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.212.26 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• It seems main problem are coronary artery abnormalities aka damage of heart [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you My very best wishes. Unsurprisingly perhaps, given that coronary artery aneurysms (surprisingly short page) are a major long-term complication of Kawasaki disease [5]. I'll try to help see this aspect more clearly covered in the medical part of the page. 86.134.212.26 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

86.134.212.26 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

moved content

@User:Doricke: The content added here is sourced to a (possibly still not peer-reviewed) hypothesis-type paper which does not comply with WP:MEDRS:

A novel hypothesis that Kawasaki disease is caused by dysregulated activation of mast cells by Fc receptor-bound pathogen antibodies accounts for much of the pathology of this disease. Histamine release from mast cells induces contraction of pericyte or effector cells on cardiac capillaries impeding blood flow. Back pressure from capilaries occulsions induces coronary aneurysms in some patients. Other Kawasaki disease symptoms can be linked to increased histamine levels.

...

It has been suggested that, as with Kawasaki disease, one possible mechanism is antibody-dependent enhancement, whereby development of antibodies facilitates viral entry into host cells or by release of histamine from mast cells activated by Fc receptor-bound SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Ricke et al. proposes that MIS-C is occuring in patients with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infections or infants with maternally transferred SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

86.186.155.159 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Only up to age 19 or 21?

According to the article, this disease only occurs up to age 19 or 21. However, it's currently big news in Israel that a 26-year-old died of it (see https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/26-year-old-man-becomes-youngest-victim-of-the-coronavirus-in-israel-631475 for an English source). 147.161.15.98 (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the heads up. According to the Times of Israel [6],

  Doctors around the world treating COVID-19 patients have in the past warned of a rare inflammatory condition that can seriously harm children with the disease. It was not clear from the initial reports if that [i.e. the subject of this page] was the ailment that Asulin developed.

  In time, this case will obviously be reported and considered in the scientific literature (and Kawasaki disease has very occasionally been reported in adults [7]).

  Regarding your question, the arbitrariness of the 19 and 21 year cut-offs presumably stems from the emerging character of the disease, and the practical need to direct clinicians' attention to certain age groups. Our task here, per WP:MEDRS, is to report information from the most reliable sourcing currently available, such as official practice guidelines and consensus statements, etc.

  86.186.155.159 (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

From the news sites here in Israel, the question appears to be not whether or not he had it, but whether medical malpractice caused his death. 147.161.13.64 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

From a strictly editorial point of view regarding this particular disease page, the *historical* significance of the case (if it is actually confirmed as being Kawasaki-like and COVID-related, as seems likely) could be - in addition to the adult age - that it's the first case recorded outside Europe/USA. On reflection though, I feel it's probably best to wait for clinical confirmation to avoid speculative content here. 86.186.155.159 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

• Now inserted here. That was a really helpful heads up - thank you! 86.186.155.159 (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

unofficial draft guidelines

Broadly in the spirit of WP:MEDRS, I think, moving an independent/unofficial set of draft clinical guidelines from == Treatment== (while maintaining the ref elsewhere to source some currently recognized symptoms):

A proposed set of COVID-19 guidelines for paediatric intensive care units (with different levels of resources) has been drafted by an international team of experts.

• Update: Some mention of the existence of this particular set of guidelines now restored (permalink). 86.191.205.34 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

References

MEDMOS changes

@Ozzie10aaaa: This rejigging of sections may follow the letter of MEDMOS. However, as the main contributor to this page (and its structure) I feel the need to say that, for this particular *novel* diagnosis, I don't see it makes for improved communication with our general readership. I believe that a significant proportion of users might conceivably find it more intuitive to come to the novel * == Diagnosis == * etc without encountering the hurdle of epidemiological and pathogenetic technicalities in == Causes == / == Mechanism == . 86.186.155.159 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

upon further review, you may have a point, please revert where you feel appropriate, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ozzie10aaaa. (In this case, I think == Diagnosis == provides essential info to explain what the condition is, following on here from == Characteristics ===.) 86.186.155.159 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

moved treatment research content

moving here for wp:weight considerations:

It is unclear whether antiviral treatments specifically targeting SARS-CoV-2 could have any potential role. The RCPHC recommends that any administration of a candidate antiviral therapy should − whenever possible − be performed in the context of a registered clinical trial (e.g. RECOVERY). In the U.K., ongoing collaborations are aiming to ensure that all infected children are able to take part in a mechanistic study such as DIAMONDS or ISARIC-CCP. (In the European Union, children do not usually participate in clinical trials of new antiviral and monoclonal antibody treatments for severe COVID-19.)

References

• UK access to clinical trials ow briefly alluded to here 86.190.128.118 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

etc

@User:Colin dm: RE your assertion in this edit summary, "et cetera" is not appropriate when listing symptoms :
I'm not sure whether you have a consolidated/consensual reason for barring "etc", or whether it's basically your own pov. Given the broad array of symptoms discussed in medrs-compliant literature, I believe this common English usage (which I think is widely recognized by readers of the English language) serves a real purpose here. 86.174.206.97 (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome → Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children – Broadly per WP:RECOGNIZE.

tl;dr

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is simpler and more widely recognized.

Detailed rationale

The name Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (almost universally abbreviated MIS-C) forms part of the nomenclature used by two out of three of the main scientific organizations that have defined this emergent medical condition. It is used by both the CDC and the WHO. The name Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome (abbreviated variously, and more ambiguously, as PMIS, PIMS, PIMS-TS, etc) was the term given by the RCPCH in the U.K., where the syndrome was first recognized.

While both terms specifically refer to the life-threatening syndrome that has emerged in children following exposure to COVID-19, GoogleScholar shows a rather emphatic discrepancy in favour of Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, recognizing about 551 [8] vs. 1 [9] items so far during 2020.

(too much detail perhaps: Of note, searching on the dedicated medical search engine PubMed does not produce a marked discrepancy, only marginally favouring Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: currently 80 vs. 79 (with appropriate use of the text-word tag, [tw], omission of which would allow PubMed to include alternative spellings/terms etc in the search results). FWIW, from a bibliometric perspective, I would argue that a general academic search engine (GoogleScholar) might be expected to provide a more useful metric to compare recognizability of two officially accepted terms for our general usership.)

I would also suggest that - especially in the context of a medical emergency - "in children" is simpler for our general usership than "paediatric", and moreover it does not involve a nationally specific spelling variation. 86.190.132.245 (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. A quick read through of the existing references give me a gut feel that Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, abbreviated MIS-C has already become dominant. I do feel the need to add more, "SARS-CoV-2 associated" or similar. Wikipedia titles don't enjoy the context assumed in the many primary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that SmokeyJoe. I get where you're coming from on "SARS-CoV-2 associated" (though I wasn't altogether sure whether you were referring to the page name or the opening definition). Regarding the page name, I believe Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children is indeed sufficient, per the numerous secondary sources referenced, including many of the available MEDRS. A couple of more extensive formulations citing either COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 infection are listed in the infobox. 86.191.67.145 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• support per SmokeyJoe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)'

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead accessibility

@User:Bondegezou: I really *don't* like to be polemical but, after considerable reflection, I felt that I had to dispute two recent edits.

This topical page regards a medical emergency, and I believe one of our tasks as editors is to make our encyclopedic presentation of reliable medical information as accessible as possible to the general reader. We know that the lead is what most general users consult, and we also know that many of those users are discouraged by the density of technicalities on many medical pages. When recently revising the opening paragraph of the lead I put considerable effort into making it as accessible as possible to the general user in such a way that relaible, need-to-know information for the public emerges as clearly as possible

• Regarding this change, per WP:INFOBOXREF (and Help:Infobox), I'm not aware of any particular MOS violation. Beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder, and to my eyes (fwiw) neither looks great, but at least the opening sentence in the version before the change wasn't cluttered with referenced bolding of the various fanciful ways in which Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome has been abbreviated. My understanding is that this may be an example of the sort of presentation that tends to repel general readers. (Ping: User:Mcbrarian, who may be able to provide an informed opinion on such matters).
• Regarding this change, per MOS:EGG etc, I find it hard to accept the contention that "...following exposure to the virus responsible for [[COVID-19]]" contains a 'surprise link'. Imo, the incorporation of the definite article makes it intuitively clear that the phrase "the virus responsible..." is referencing a single, specific virus, and that general readers may reasonably expect a link to the specific virus, rather than a generic [[the virus|virus]]. My rationale for not linking [[SARS-CoV-2]] directly (as in the main text, below) is to minimize grammatically unnecessary usage of a technical acronym such as "SARS-CoV-2" that may help repel the sort of user who is comfortable with, say, commonly used words such as "virus" or "coronavirus" but feels discouraged by an unfamiliar alphanumeric string.

I understand that MOS / MEDMOS pundits will have varying milage in these regard, but I don't think it's entirely irrelevant to point out that - as the main contributor to this rapidly evolving page - I have worked hard not only to provide technically correct reliably sourced medical coverage throughout, but also to try my damnedst to render the lead as clear and accessible as possible for our general readership, per the spirit of MEDMOS.

In a collegial spirit, 86.177.202.175 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, (86.177.202.175). Here's what I think would be most beneficial to the general reader: the lead could bold only the proper name used in the title. The other names for this virus is quite a long list and I see they are already listed with appropriate citations in the infobox. Is it redundant to have all other names listed in both the lead and in the infobox? Could we not list the other names in the infobox exclusively? Would it help to ensure the other names are added to a disambiguation page? Hope this is somewhat helpful! Mcbrarian (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Mcbrarian, which is (almost embarassingly) close to my own thoughts, I think, except that I've no idea about the dab page idea. (Btw, a really helpful dab page for Multisystem inflammatory syndrome was created by User:Classicwiki, but I'm not sure how PMIS, PIMS, PIMS-TS etc could usefully fit in to that.) I pinged Mcbrarian because I know she's got a real interest in how to make Med leads accessible to the general usership without compromising scientific or encyclopedic rigor. If she, or anyone else, feels they can genuinely improve the lead in this respect, I think that would be a really good thing. And, of course, any other page content too :-) 86.177.202.175 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding: Oh, yes of course... dab page for PMIS (?) ...PIMS now done. Thank you! 86.177.202.175 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Mcbrarian asked, Could we not list the other names in the infobox exclusively? No. The MOS is clear that the infobox summarises the article. There should not (with only rare exceptions) be information in the infobox that is not covered somewhere in the article proper. If you don't want that information in the lead section, fine, put it somewhere else in the article. But it can't be in the infobox alone.

IP editor describes, usage of a technical acronym such as "SARS-CoV-2" that may help repel the sort of user who is comfortable with, say, commonly used words such as "virus" or "coronavirus" but feels discouraged by an unfamiliar alphanumeric string. We've not taken that approach on a dozen other COVID-19-related articles. I see no need to do so here. Yes, the lead section should be accessible. By having the phrase "the virus responsible for COVID-19" following and by making "SARS-CoV-2" a link, we make clear to the most uninformed reader what's going on. The reader has already encountered the acronyms PIMS, PIMS-TS and MIS-C by this point in the text, If they were that put off by unfamiliar alphanumeric strings, we would have lost them already! Bondegezou (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised by Bondegezou's cognitive assumptions regarding how the general readership responds to stuff such as a profusion of acronyms and technicaliies. Not everyone has had a university or technical education, and we really want to communicate well on topics such as this with the widest audience possible (without compromising, of course the real substance). My professional background is in writing academic medical papers, and tbh I've put one hell of a lot of effort into rendering this page in the best way that in which that I'm capable. I know it's not perfect, but it's work carefully done. I know from sad experience elsewhere on Wikipedia that I'm not the only contributor of such content to feel disturbed and frustrated by drive-by disputes regarding matters infobox protocol, etc. Tomorrow, I'm busy irl, and I think it may be a good time to take a wikibreak. Goodnight. 86.177.202.175 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Might I suggest we focus on how to make the article the best it can be rather than on our backgrounds (see WP:EXPERT) or who put in more effort (WP:OWN)?

Other editors, do you have any thoughts here that could help resolve this matter? I'll ask for input in the WikiProject too. Bondegezou (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's review. The lead section refers to "Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome (PIMS / PIMS-TS), or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C)". The infobox title then refers to two of those acronyms, PIMS and PIMS-TS, but not the third, MIS-C, while introducing a fourth, PMIS. The infobox then gives other names of: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C); Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) in children and adolescents temporally related to COVID-19; Paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS), temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (PIMS-TS); and Kawa-COVID-19. This is a new condition and a surfeit of names is to be expected. We need to support the reader through this. It seems sensible for the lead section and infobox to match better. The infobox, as per MOS:INFOBOX, is not meant to contain content not in the article. The use of citations in the infobox title is ugly and probably fails MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS.

So, let's have a section in the article that describes the multiple different names, with citations. The infobox can drop the citations in its title. Let's agree on what the main names/acronyms are and lead with those in the lead section and in the infobox title.

The infobox then has an image with a description referring to "PMIS / MIS-C": let's again work out the main names used and achieve some consistency in use. The description then refers to SARS-CoV-2, a term 86.177.202.175 wants to keep out of the lead section. Again, consistency would seem sensible. I support using SARS-CoV-2 in the lead section, but either way, let's match lead section and infobox wording. Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever Bondegezou... This volunteer also happens to be a human being who has invested his backbone in this page and is capable of feeling disturbed, when, for instance, accessibility issues of real pertinence appear - in this dialogue at least (though not in the recent changes :) to be largely swept aside or go unaddressed. I'm leaving stepping back from this page for now (after curating it daily from close to the start). FWIW, I can see good, substantial aruments for restoring [[SARS-CoV-2]], but not for the clutter. 86.190.194.115 (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I actually think #Name could be good. 86.190.194.115 (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding: Yes, I feel that's preferable, despite some wp:weight reservations. It does seem to be a shame that the first section of the main text is a list of largely redundant nomenclature (though I feel the sorts of users who venture beyond the lead are likely to be more selective in their reading/focus, as compared with the many interested/target users who tend to make a rapid judgement as to whether or not a page is written for them in mind). But, hey, if the RCPCH (or someone in their PR department perhaps?) decides that they really need to rename an emerging condition several times in as many days... Btw, @Bondegezou, do you perhaps have a view on #Requested move 7 September 2020? So far, only one opinion has been expressed, and if there is some consensus for MIS-C, wouldn't it would be good to be able to get rid of the distracting banner? 86.190.194.115 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Some articles have a name section early in the article, but others have such a section much later. I feel that with a new condition and lots of confusion over what it is called, it's better to have the name section early, but I don't have a strong view on that matter should other editors feel it would be better placed towards the end of the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

History notes

Poland

In Poland, nine confirmed cases of PIMS had been identified by 28 July 2020 in the context of a registry study (the first confirmed case presented on 3 May). 86.138.231.26 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Absolute figures

So far, the article largely fails to mention recent absolute figures for MIS-C. The only absolute figures at all are buried way deep in the History section at the bottom of the article, instead of in the lead or infobox at the top or in the Epidemiology section where they belong. As it stands, the USA seem to be the epicenter of the disease as that's where most cases were diagnosed, and the most recent US figure dates from July, 2020. With most other countries, where far fewer cases were confirmed, the latest data on absolute figures dates from August, 2020. Between first reports coming in late April and the most recent data from July, 2020, more than 300 cases were confirmed in the USA alone. The most recent data of all in the article refers to South Korea and dates from early October, 2020. --2003:EF:1704:7277:5DB9:6E6A:B4D1:170 (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I consider this a rather urgent issue to update the article, as those 350 confirmed cases in the USA were found or reported coincidentally (or at random), within the course of only two months (late April to early July, 2020), with no mass-scale routine check-ups to find it in people, other than is being done with acute infection of SARS-COV-2 itself which people are regularly mass-screened for, suggesting that MIS-C is far from as rare as the lead makes it out to be.

I keep linking this Wikipedia article here to anti-vaxxers who claim children ewould be "naturally immune" to Coronaviros and would "not be at threat of harm from the virus at all", and thus, vaxxing children would be a "crime against humanity". The only figure they can see in this article is the one of <1% risk of kids immediately dying from MIS-C as it's so prominently displayed, as all other figures are a.) buried so deep within the article where nobody would even expect them, and b.) because this article is so horribly out of date. 350 randomly found confirmed cases in the USA within the course of only two months in spring, 2020, and after that, the article just pretty much stopped counting confirmed cases. All newer cases are not from the USA and only "suspected" cases, with no follow-ups on whether those could be confirmed. --2003:EF:1704:7257:A562:1B77:6B93:20CE (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I read in Russian news about (at least) 3 suspicious cases that might be MIS-C. It's not surpsing that there is little reporting on that because the syndrom isn't well known yet. Not so many children died because of it and it's generally hard to differentiate it from other conditions. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree the page is dated now (though I tried to keep it reasonably up-to-date until about mid-2021), and I have inserted some 'update' templates to highlight this (something that should doubtless have been done earlier.

  Regarding the inclusion of some case counts (in ==History==), this information was provided at a time when the disease was a fast-developing current event. In fact, ==History== chronicles some epidemiologically-relevant information that was genuinely newsworthy at the time, but which would certainly not have met WP:MEDRS for inclusion under ==Epidemiology==. Please note that "mass-scale routine check-ups to find it in people" [in the general population] would not have been necessary or appropriate, given the extreme severity of the inflammation, which calls for urgent hospitalization. I broadly agree with the points made by User:AXONOV about reporting difficulties and data reliability issues around the world. 86.186.94.186 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)