Talk:SARS-CoV-2

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath ^talk 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The Wuhan lab leak should be referenced. Data backs the lab leak theory and should be included 99.196.129.196 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Reading the talk threads, it seems to me that editor @Bon courage has disproportionate impact on this talk page. Other editors have commented on the tone used by @Bon courage when speaking to other editors as antagonistic. I agree. It's my suggestion that an additional admin who has not yet contributed would be more helpful for improving this article. The professionalism of @Bon courage, at least on this talk page, seems to be hampered by their ambiguous, unnecessary references to popular opinion, such as in comments like " The hot take on LL at the moment is that it was a ruse sold to the sheeple, and that those who have truly taken the red pill can see LL for the lie it is (as there was no virus)." This type of engagement would not be tolerated in less senior editors or admins, and suggests an abuse of privilege. There are minor editors here trying in earnest to inform the public's encyclopedic search for whether sars-cov-2 and similar viruses may have been tied to laboratory research, a subject which has been given better consideration in the wiki pages covering the earlier SARS outbreaks. We may not like the conclusions the public draws on the information presented, but, for example, if there is a source that can substantiate that any research on sars like viruses was being done on animal vectors in laboratories in Wuhan, that is relevant information and should be provided, if not here then in the pertinent articles. UserSwamp (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

if there is a source that can substantiate that any research on sars like viruses was being done on animal vectors in laboratories in Wuhan ← there is none (as reliable sources tell us). This is rather the point. Your arguments seems to be a complaint that evidence is being presented you don't like? Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bon courage, I urge you not to make assumptions about fellow editors' intentions, please. All information is worth evaluating. I am not afraid of any information from any source, whether I previously agreed with any conclusions drawn, because I am confident in my reading comprehension and my own skepticism. This complaint is specifically about elitist tendencies masqueraded as impartiality that are rampant among veteran editors. My quote of yours above was to call attention to the fact that all editors, veteran or other wise, fall subject to letting their personal histories influence their speech to other editors and the way they interact with edits. Anyways, it might calm you down to hear me summarize my understanding of the origin. I believe reports that the wet market in wuhan was the primary location of spread of sars cov 2 in Wuhan. I believe the article published by the Wuhan researchers themselves that sars-cov-2 initially developed in wild bats. I also believe that article's following statement: "Simplot analysis showed that 2019-nCoV was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13 (Fig. 1c), with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%." I also believe the addendum to that article that states the Wuhan team did bring a field sampled virus, later confirmed to be RaTG13 , back to the Wuhan lab and published that data in 2016. Which means the Lab in Wuhan lab possessed highly related samples of sars viruses. I accept but find it not salient that RatG13 specifically is not sufficiently close enough to be implicated as an ancestor to Sars-cov-2. I do not know, and maybe never will know whether the line of transmission of Sars-cov-2 from wild bat to Wuhan wet market ever included a brief stay as a lab sample at a nearby virology lab. But to assert that encyclopedia readers are not to be trusted with the information that a lab analyzing closely related sars viruses could at some point have been involved with accidental escape is elitist at best. UserSwamp (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I never said anything about your "intentions". You say you "believe" many things but this is not a WP:NOTAFORUM so discussion of your personal beliefs is not appropriate. When treating such "beliefs" Wikipedia follows reliable sources like this which goes into detail about RaTG13 conspiracy theories, and has an actual virologist[1] as author. As is stated in the lableak article, "There is no evidence that any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, or a plausible ancestor virus, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic".^[1] Bon courage (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

When you said "Your arguments seems to be a complaint that evidence is being presented you don't like?", it seemed to me that you were assuming to know what evidence I intend to not like from the get go, i.e., you assume I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist. Please read my use of the phrase "I believe" in the sense of "to find credible." And in that regard, I was trying to show you that I find credible some of the same sources you do, like the ones I listed, and which are used as sources elsewhere in Wikipedia. This talk page is for us to come to a consensus on what language and sources we agree should be used, i.e., what we as a group agree is credible. Finally, yes, I concede that no sources conclude that an ancestor virus to Sars-cov-2 had been reported to have been in possession by the Wuhan lab, or any lab. As you notice, I have not even attempted to make edits on this actual article yet. At some point, what will become relevant in the future on some other Wikipedia article is whether any virology labs are harboring closely related viruses to Sars-cov-2 as well as the track record for lab accidents of those labs. UserSwamp (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

All information is worth evaluating Even misinformation? I suspect you need to read WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Request to add Paper DOI:10.31579/2690-4861/328 as Source to the Caption of the File:Coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2.png, since it's only sourced with a russian news report from its creation. LukeTriton (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Question: Why do you feel that is preferred? The image's provenance is well documented on its file page and the citation is an article from the creators of the original image – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Macaddct1984 True. The documentation is excellent, but as I'm not an expert, I found it challenging to verify whether the composed image was completely covered by it. After reading through the awarding discussion, I saw that the Russian outlet has a good reputation and that the image was verified by experts. That's great! However, I would have found it easier to trust it from the start, if i saw that it was published in an international journal, as I'm not familiar with Russian media. While the Russian source is preferable if you know the outlet, given its coverage of the creation, adding an international journal might help clarify its legitimacy for many people. LukeTriton (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It's a little unusual for an image caption to have a citation at all, but as it goes back to the original sourcing I'm inclined to keep it. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Molnupiravir should be added to treatments section on December 23, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for molnupiravir for the treatment of adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of symptom onset, who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease, and for whom alternative antiviral therapies are not accessible or clinically appropriatehe.The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends using molnupiravir 800 mg orally (PO) twice daily for 5 days as an alternative therapy in nonhospitalized patients aged ≥18 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of disease progression when ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) and remdesivir are not available, feasible to use, or clinically appropriate Ferid9 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

We need an RS to add information to an article. Also, this looks like a copyvio. Vgbyp (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedia articles that use British English
• Wikipedia controversial topics
• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• B-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Top-importance Molecular Biology articles
• B-Class Genetics articles
• Top-importance Genetics articles
• WikiProject Genetics articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• B-Class COVID-19 articles
• Top-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Top-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Top-importance medicine articles
• B-Class emergency medicine and EMS articles
• Top-importance emergency medicine and EMS articles
• Emergency medicine and EMS task force articles
• B-Class pulmonology articles
• High-importance pulmonology articles
• Pulmonology task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class virus articles
• Top-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Wikipedia pages referenced by the press

• Wikipedia pages about contentious topics
• All Wikipedia vital articles
• Wikipedia pages using copied template