Talk:SARS-CoV-2

bad sentance

Article says "The University of Hong Kong has also announced that a vaccine is under development there but has yet to proceed to animal testing.[66]" Should be more clear; "The University of Hong Kong has also announced that a vaccine is under development, but they have yet to proceed to animal testing." or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.38.247 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

R nought

Dekimasu Based on the CDC statement and other reports the number 5 for R-nought is an generally considered an outlier estimate at this time. Shouldn't we mention that? It doesn't have to be a restoration of the quote this article from the Atlantic may give more context. Dartslilly (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please note that I did not add the higher number. At the time it was added, there was a hidden comment asking editors not to add an unreliable basic reproduction number. I believe that in response to the 3-5 addition I added the 1.4-3.8 figure, which was from the outbreak article at the time. I don't think there should be any problem with rewording that part to deemphasize the 3-5 estimate. As a more general problem faced by this article, it seems like there are various research groups that want to add their names and links to their research and their own specific conclusions here, perhaps because this article is currently attracting a lot of traffic; it is difficult to manage all of these, particularly since they are generally citing unpublished research at this time. Dekimasuよ! 17:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dartslilly, I have rephrased those sentences per this comment (although of course the article may be changed by others again before you see this). Dekimasuよ! 04:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding first published values of R0

I suggest to add the first published values of R0 that appeared in peer-review journals (NEJM and Eurosurveillance) this week.

"Research groups have estimated the basic reproduction number (R0 R_{0}, pronounced R-nought) of the virus to be between 1.4 and 5, with most estimates below 3.8.[42][43][44][45] This means that, when unchecked, the virus typically results in 1.4 to 3.8 new cases per established infection."

Could be changed to:

"The the basic reproduction number (R0 R_{0}, pronounced R-nought) of the virus has been estimated to be between 1.4 and 3.9."

The two references that support each others findings are as follows:

Thanks! Calthaus (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done Basically instituted: kept the second sentence but adjusted the numbers and added the sources. It seems clear at this point that the 5 number is an outlier (and, as you pointed out, these are published and that wasn't), so I have removed that reference for now. Dekimasuよ! 04:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition, I should note that any conflicts of interest should be self-reported, as your username may be taken to indicate one here. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted! 89.206.115.106 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: wait... where? how? robertsky (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The second source, but the journal seems reliable enough, so I've left things at that for now. Dekimasuよ! 14:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

C. Althaus, good spotting. @Dekimasu: Where's a good place to declare conflicts of interest for specific articles? I should declare that my spouse works on this stuff (same last name - Erik M Volz), but I've been careful not to cite anything written by him. I did fix a link that someone else added from Imperial College London to the more specific Imperial_College_Faculty_of_Medicine (his employer). Mvolz (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Mvolz, thanks for pointing this out voluntarily. If you want to mark it here or on another specific article talk page, you can use Template:Connected contributor at the top of the article's talk. In this case it doesn't sound like you need to do so. On your userpage, you can create a list using Template:UserboxCOI or create a similar text-based list. Dekimasuよ! 13:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Caption on the image

@Hemiauchenia: the image may be "very clearly a computer generated 3d render" to you, but as I mentioned here and at WP:ERRORS, the source of the image calls it an illustration, and does not provide further information on how it was produced. Unless you have a source saying the image was produced by a computer, we should stick with the verifiable facts. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point, It's like saying we shouldn't say a picture of the moon is of the moon unless it is explicitly stated by the source. Saying that we can't know how the image is produced is silly, and merely shows your ignorance of computer graphics. It is clearly a 3d model of the virus (I. e. a computer graphic), with lighting, shading and blur effects, which by definition makes it a render. This isn't something that could be produced by any other method. I think that calling it an illustration is clearer and I don't disagree with the change, but your logic that we can't know it's a render is off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of the infobox and the treachery of images, I'm wondering if it's about time to remove the picture of China ("Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the only recorded outbreak"). It's true that Wuhan is still the epicenter of the outbreak, but the outbreak is also global at this point, and the map may be one of the factors that is prompting the insertion of too much information on the specific outbreak into this article on the virus. Still, I'm not sure, so would like to hear other opinions on this. Dekimasuよ! 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The outbreak is still largely confined to china and Hubei province, there isn't really significant human to human transmission outside China yet, so it should remain as is currently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Where the outbreak happens to be taking place is not really germane to a description of the virus, though, is it? Unless it is necessary context for discussing the natural reservoir. Dekimasuよ! 15:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please consider adding some brief function descriptions for the various parts shown in the (2nd) cross-sectional image. It would be great if those functions could also be linked to relevant wikipages. Jahibadkaret (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 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. There is no significant consensus for a move to the original proposed title "2019-nCoV". A lot of those supports were also either accompanied with a preference for the alternate title or with the alternate title for the second choice. Only a handful of opposes for both of the titles proposed and/or supported titles that had not gained any consensus here. Given the general preference for the alternate title, a lot of which were only w.r.t. the alternate title with no preference (and the ones which opposed the originally proposed title), it makes sense to assess the preferential supports in support of the alternative title. Taking those into account and lack of a strong opposition to the titles proposed, there is a consensus for this requested move to move this article to "2019 novel coronavirus". qedk (t 桜 c) 08:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → 2019-nCoV – :

The current title is still malformed. We should either call this 2019 novel coronavirus or just... 2019-nCoV. The current article title is a bad combination of both these names for the virus. See #Requested move 22 January 2020 for context.

References

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• (I feel like it's worth noting here that MERS-CoV was originally referred to as "2012-nCoV" or "Novel Coronavirus" just like this species is so the name will allmost certainly be changed again regardless out outcome Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC))

• First choice: Merge most of this article into Coronavirus leaving a redirect. Merge the Epidemiology section into into 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

* Second choice: Rename to Wuhan coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME and to align with the title of 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. ----Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I have crossed out your second proposal as we have already discussed this and rejected it, as for your first proposal SARS-CoV has an article separate from SARS and MERS CoV has an article separate from MERS this distinction largely applies to all articles about viruses with the viruses having a separate article from the diseases they cause. I don't really see why the article should largely be merged into the main coronavirus article if SARS and MERS aren't. Ideally there should be three articles, one on the virus itself, a second on the disease the virus causes and a third on the outbreak itself, though there isn't enough information at the moment to separate the latter two articles, at least in my opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear why this should be merged into Coronavirus when each of the 7 coronaviruses that have caused infections in humans has its own article. It is not workable to merge all seven into Coronavirus (including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV), and they are all considered different species, which are usually given their own articles. Meanwhile, there is a hatnote at Coronavirus pointing to this article. Dekimasuよ! 05:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with @Dekimasu:. The subject (the virus) shall warrant its own article per academic notability test. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to either title proposed, with a slight preference for 2019-nCoV as it's at least unambiguous and the official name, and nothing else genuinely catchy has been settled on by the media. The current title is okay, but it does feel unnecessarily messy as it's basically two names. Either of the proposed names are sufficiently unambiguous, used by relevant sources, and don't have the unhelpful baggage of the previously proposed names involving Wuhan. ~ mazca ^talk 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now The full article title of the SARS virus is Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and I feel that the title of the article should include the word "coronavirus" in some capacity as it is known currently by most people as simply "the coronavirus"."2019-nCoV" on its own is too obstuse and techical, and isn't descriptive. However, the title Novel Coronavirus on its own seems too generic. I think the current name "Novel Coronavirus (2019 nCoV)" while somewhat stilted and awkward, encapsulates the scope of the article perfectly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming that might be what you meant, but for clarity that part of the proposal is for "2019 novel coronavirus" rather than just "Novel coronavirus", which I agree would be very generic. ~ mazca ^talk 21:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, I prefer 2019 Novel coronavirus over 2019 nCoV, as it is more descriptive, but I'm not hugely fussed on the change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There already is a novel coronavirus disambiguation page. This one is the fourth listed. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to 2019-nCoV because what of that name is preferred. This virus should be known by its scientific name. 25 out of 55 wikipedias in other languages doesn't use "novel coronavirus" or its equivalents in their native language because it will grammatically incorrect, for example Belarus, German, Indonesian, Catalan, Dutch, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, and many more (Most of Germanic language wikipedias doesn't use name like novel coronavirus in their language). English is one of many languages that use novel coronavirus or its equivalent along with its scientific name, same as Arabic, Italian, Korean, and Turkish language. The term novel coronavirus would confuse if other virus than 2019-nCoV released.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk)

What article titles other language wikipedia articles use is irrelevant to this discussion. As 2019 nCoV is a temporary name anyway this article title will inevitably be changed again Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to 2019-nCoV as first choice. Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus as second choice. The current title is made up of an underlying imprecise title ("novel coronavirus"), followed by an actual precise disambiguator. However, the disambiguator is equivalent to "2019 novel coronavirus", so the current title basically parses as "Novel coronavirus (2019 novel coronavirus)". That's a substandard title under article titling policy. Dekimasuよ! 05:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus as that is the common name used by the CDC and many news outlets. The abbreviation should not be used alone, as it is gobbledegook and doesn't clearly identify what the article is about to the lay person. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment We should be using the WP:COMMONNAME which seems to be "coronavirus" and not the scientific name. News sites such as CNN, New York Times, Fox News, BBC, and Australia's news.com.au are all using "coronavirus."^{[1][2][3][4][5]} It makes sense to use "2019 coronavirus" as the Wikipedia title for this outbreak and "2019-nCoV" within the body of the article. I have not seen the phrase "novel coronavirus" in news headlines and suspect it's not a WP:COMMONNAME. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2019 novel coronavirus Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Sources use all "coronavirus", "novel coronavirus", "2019 novel coronavirus", and "2019-nCoV". But the only one that meets all five criteria is "2019 novel coronarivus". "2019-nCoV" meets the criteria of conciseness but in terms of recognizability and naturalness, "2019 novel coronavirus" surpasses "2019-nCoV". We also have articles like Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus that do not use abbreviation which could be ambiguous. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment As some have mentioned, the current article title does need to change as "Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" is not concise and is against WP:AT, even if the move may be temporary. Once we have the final scientific/medical name, we can make another move per WP:NCMED. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus as it is a descriptive WP:COMMONNAME and while 2019-nCoV is the most technically correct hardly anyone in the general public calls it that way. GoodCrossing (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus sufficently WP:COMMONNAME until either we need to diasmbiguate, or the ICTV confirm a new virus name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC).
  
• Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus and support move to 2019-nCoV. The first is common ordinary language and the second is compact (temporary) scientific terminology. Since the scientific name could in principle still be changed, and since the ordinary language name tends to be used more than the present scientific name, 2019 novel coronavirus would tend to be favoured out of these two options. (The Wuhan connotation seems to me to still be common in the media, for obvious reasons, but that was strongly objected to in the previous move proposal, especially because of the problem of long-term negative connotations for a geographical region.) Boud (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional support - I am all for being consistent with articles about other viruses in this class, but if this provisional name is not likely to become the final name in scientific circles then we can wait. So, I support the move provided that provisional names like this usually become the final names for this class of virus, or more specifically, that this provisional name is likely to be the final name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Update per Hemiauchenia's reply below: Probably a no - if scientific name is likely to be changed, we can wait for the change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: MERS-CoV was originally referred to as 2012-nCoV or simply "novel coronavirus" just like 2019 nCoV so the name is almost certainly going to be changed. Guess that's a no then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment yet for me I decide to support rename 2019-nCoV for now as provisional name until final name was announced by WHO. Until now, not yet final name of 2019-nCoV was revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (Change to my previous position, preserved below.) Given news reports that the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses will have an official name in a few days, I suggest we leave the current imperfect name alone until then. (Followed by a speedy rename to the final name, as it's Obviously The Right Thing to do.) 196.247.24.12 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Moving the page in the next few days doesn't prevent us from moving it again; we don't know if the official name will really be released in a few days; and in either event we won't do a "speedy rename" without discussion, both because the WP:COMMONNAME won't change immediately (WP:NAMECHANGES), and because we don't use official names automatically. I think it is better to proceed with this and then revisit the issue as soon as is necessary, whenever that may be. Dekimasuよ! 08:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dekimasu: No, it doesn't prevent a second rename, but that would be needless churn. Reading the comments here, the sole point of contention is that we want something better than "2019 nCoV" but don't have anything. Many other comments here are either "oppose, wait for a better name" or "support, although I wish there were a better name", so we can consider this rename discussion a mandate to switch to a new official name when it exists and appears to be gaining traction. I agree that widespread usage is a prerequisite, but I think if that is met (which could take as little as 48 hours at current news rates), a consensus to use it already demonstrably exists on WP. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support 2019 novel coronavirus. "2019 nCoV" (which is just an abbreviation of the that) is too abbreviated and jargon-y for an article name. (I recently made a similar change merging nCoV into novel coronavirus and converting the former to a redirect.) I wish there was a better name (I have one friend who calls it "SARS II" despite the order-of-magnitude difference in the case fatality rate), but that's the best we have for now. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: If people agree with User:Hemiauchenia that a better name is imminent, I'm not opposed to waiting, but I'm not convinced that's true; surely there's been enough time and attention for WHO to propose a name if they were going to? I mostly oppose 2019 nCoV; if you want to change, use the full name. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there is an entire article "Novel coronavirus" dedicated to the topic. Apparently SARS was originally referred to as 2002-nCoV, so the fact that it will be changed is almost certain. I agre that the WHO has been far too slow in giving the Coronavirus a proper name though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Um, yes, I know; I created it. :-) 196.247.24.12 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

More technically 67.70.33.184 created the article at nCoV, which you moved to "Novel Coronavirus" and significantly expanded. The comment was aimed to inform other reading contributors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: FWIW, the sequence of events was I tried to look up novel coronavirus on WP and discovered that it was a redirect somewhere other than 2019-nCoV, which I decided was a stupid mistake. so I created a disambiguation page. It was during my search for pages to include in the disambiguation list that I discovered nCoV, so I merged its contents into my draft. (Then I published the whole thing in one go.) It really did start as as independent rewrite, not a move. 196.247.24.12 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2019 novel coronavirus. A redirect should be added from "2019-nCoV", but this should not be the main title (it is jargon). Renerpho (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I do Oppose moving it to "2019-nCoV", as per the above. My support is for the long form only. Renerpho (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both, per Hemiauchenia's comments. Let's just wait until we have a final name. Mvolz (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Mvolz, why should we wait when the current title is so bad and a good alternative (2019 novel coronavirus) is available now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As Hemiauchenia had said, I think (2019 novel coronavirus) alone is a bit too generic. Mvolz (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mvolz, that is not what they said. They said My mistake, I prefer 2019 Novel coronavirus over 2019 nCoV, as it is more descriptive, but I'm not hugely fussed on the change. (emphasis modified) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It might seem generic in some cases, but here we know that there will only be one coronavirus using that name, since we're already in 2020. Dekimasuよ! 13:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wait for permanent name instead. 2019-nCoV is too technical on its own, though. In fact, as long as there is no official designation you may call it by whatever people will recognize: I have even heard colleagues refer to it as HIBreathe due to it expressing gp120. 89.206.115.106 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2019 novel coronavirus. Other title un-WP:RECOGNIZABLE Ribbet32 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus per above. This could be made a naming convention for future similar cases of new emerging types of virus. Until it gets a (real) name, the article title would be the year when it's first identified, word "novel" or any other appropriate identifier for it/its nature, then the family of the virus. Although 2019-nCoV is also used/mentioned by many publications, the name sounds technical and nondescriptive. The target seems to be the best alternative according WP:CRITERIA Polo (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Update:BBC suggests new name will be announced within daysHemiauchenia (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's fine, we can do this again when it's necessary. It is always part of an ongoing process. However, we don't necessarily move things immediately because an official name has been selected. We wait for sources to follow, under WP:NAMECHANGES. Right now, the sources are on board with what is listed in this move request, so let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Dekimasuよ! 02:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why not Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV, like here? Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus per above. —hueman1 (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to 2019 novel coronavirus per above. EMS | Talk 19:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as suggested. If it was going to be moved, it could go to the common name of Wuhan coronavirus, but novel coronavirus is only going to be a temporary name, and nCoV is a code or abbreviation and thus unsuitable. How do you even pronounce it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus against the title Wuhan coronavirus was already found in the last discussion. For what it's worth, the pronunciation is en-coh-vee. Dekimasuよ! 13:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. How to consider the new scientific name WH-Human 1 coronavirus? (See Wu et al., 2020, Nature). Chhandama (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a new scientific name, but a name made up for use in one individual (accepted, but not yet published) research paper. Dekimasuよ! 13:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy Move to WH-Human-1 coronavirus Unless anyone objects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Edit, nevermind, not an official name Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• move to "2019 novel coronavirus" with "also known as 2019-nCoV" in lead, and redirect 2019-nCoV to the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• move to "2019 novel coronavirus". Although I did semi-support 2019-nCoV in the previous RM, on reflection I don't like it. It fails WP:RECOGNIZE, which is a key plank of our article titling policy, as most people won't know the virus by this technical name. 2019 novel coronavirus satisfies all concerns.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Novel coronavirus is the formal name for the virus, and 2019-nCov is the official designation, so it's best title, especially for now. Peterwu2019 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any sense in which "novel coronavirus" is a complete formal name for this particular virus. "(novel coronavirus)" might be a sufficient disambiguator denoting the class of virus if one were necessary, but it isn't in this case. Dekimasuよ! 13:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Post closure discussion

Moved from User talk:Wugapodes#Novel coronavirus Thanks for closing the discussion. Although I don't agree with your reading of the consensus in the discussion and think it would be overturned in a WP:MR discussion, since the current title is not appropriate under WP:AT and there were very few editors who opposed the title 2019 novel coronavirus (3 who said wait, 1 who proposed a title that was already rejected in the previous discussion's consensus, 1 who did not seem to have a grasp of the conversation and thought a redlinked title was the common name), I don't intend to argue that with you very strenuously here. And as you said, it might be superseded at that point by a different official title. However, I would appreciate it if you would clarify on the talk page that the close is a "no consensus" close in your reading. There doesn't appear to be any procedural issue in the formulation of the request or the discussion that would result in a procedural close, so the outcome should be based either on finding a consensus in the discussion or not finding one. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, in your edit summary you wrote "not moved", which is generally RM-speak for consensus against a move (WP:NOTMOVED) and I can't imagine that's what you intended here. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I use "not moved" literally to mean that the page stayed where it was not as an indication of consensus, but I appreciate the feedback and will try to be more clear in the future!

I've revised the close, let me know if you still disagree. To explain slightly more, while the number of editors saying "wait" was relatively small, their reasoning was sound and couldn't be discounted easily. They offered an argument as to why moving at all was suboptimal, but the various "support" !votes that came after barely engaged with that reasoning. The few times the "wait" opinions were challenged, the editors in favor of waiting refuted the "move and then move again" arguments. For example, the IP editor's response to you summarizes it well: [I]t doesn't prevent a second rename, but that would be needless churn. Reading the comments here, the sole point of contention is that we want something better than "2019 nCoV" but don't have anything. Many other comments here are either "oppose, wait for a better name" or "support, although I wish there were a better name", so we can consider this rename discussion a mandate to switch to a new official name when it exists and appears to be gaining traction.

After Hemiauchenia's comment, the proportion of support to oppose opinions shifted dramatically, and many opposers cited Hemiauchenia's comments explicitly as leading them to oppose. Meanwhile two editors who originally supported the proposal changed their opinion to "wait" after engaging with that argument. While the early discussion tilted towards "2019 novel coronavirus", after more participants joined and engaged in critical discussion, the opposition managed to convince supporters to change their minds. Supporters convinced no opposers.

While the opposers, numerically, were not many, among those editors who considered those arguments, they were considered very convincing and significant. By comparison, supporters abandoned their position, showing that participants didn't find that position as convincing. So I discounted supports in comparison to the "wait" opposes. Despite that, the sheer number of supports indicates that while the oppose votes were convincing, there was no consensus that they were the correct path. Thus no consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, I don't think it's the best use of our time to argue about the close. However, I was fairly sure the discussion showed consensus and didn't want to bog it down with pestering the opposers, so I didn't even bother to engage with them much. That's on me, I suppose (though it wasn't my proposal to begin with). My take would be this: there is no such thing as "needless churn" on Wikipedia (or conversely, all editing on Wikipedia incorporates some degree of needless churn). That's part of the perennial "no deadline"/"the deadline is now" debate. But coming down on the side of waiting involves a few different stages of speculation: 1) that there is no usefulness to having the page at the intermediate title until a new one is selected (that is, that readers and editors from today until the next time the page is moved won't be caused problems by the current title), 2) that the new title will be propagated on schedule (which is kind of a version of WP:CRYSTAL, I think), 3) that the new title will be adopted soon enough that it will fit WP:NAMECHANGES and not just be a case of WP:OFFICIAL, and 4) that a new discussion to settle on the new title will be able to gain consensus. That is, I took the "wait" opinions as irrelevant to the question as to whether the proposed title was preferable to the current title. Nothing about moving the page precludes a new discussion to establish a new title later; the main problem we have now is that the page was moved several times before we had anything like the level of consensus shown for 2019 novel coronavirus in the current discussion, resulting in a title no one likes. In move discussions, "wait" is often correctly read as an indication of opposition to the move, but in most cases those who write "wait" in a move discussion are asking for evidence that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, not arguing that the common name may change in the future. One of those reflects policy and the other doesn't, I think. At any rate, I appreciate your responsiveness. Dekimasuよ! 06:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Epidemiologist interview

Yug has twice added the following text to the section on virus research: "Zhejiang University's renowned epidemiologist Li Lanjuan has announced a possible timeline of few months to produce production and test a vaccine. Patients samples allowed researchers to isolate the virus strain, from which 4 weeks are needed to create vaccine strains, 2 weeks to test these, 6 weeks for official approval."

I have removed the addition, because many well-known doctors have made comments about vaccine research in regards to 2019-nCoV, and it is unclear why we should focus on this single researcher's opinion here. The YouTube clip cited does not say that Li Lanjuan or the university is directly involved in any vaccine development. It only explains one possible timeline and is not really an "announcement" (Yug did add "possible" in the second addition). I am moving the discussion to talk to try to resolve this; other opinions welcome. Dekimasuよ! 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Dekinasu, I understand your concerns, yet I see value in this citation, be it by the fact it's a leading Chinese virologist, still in charge at Zhejiang University, and because this citation state the details of a timeline, the vaccine's substeps. Positive inclusion in my opinion. Yug (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dekimasu and Yug!

The addition that was removed should, I believe, be reinstated as soon as there is another source of an interview with another epidemiologist. If there is already an alternate source of relevant and scientic information, I don't see the point of removing it or discussing it either. Ty! FranciscoMMartins (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The less speculation about vaccine research, the better. All that can be said by now is that the initial antigen purifications are proceeding far better than with SARS - basically all vaccine workgroups can be supplied in abundance, so vaccine development can proceed at good speed. But this does not mean a vaccine for public use is anywhere close. An experimental therapeutic vaccine for emergency trials in already-infected patients may be ready out in less than a month if research proceeds at present speed, but this is not the same as a tested and safe vaccine for mass preventive inoculation. The latter is more limited by the time and resources required to set up a production and distribution chain, i.e. a problem of economics and logistics that is mostly outside the scope of biomedical research.

So for some time we will be getting different "expert opinions" most of which will be equally true despite vastly contradicting, because they define "vaccine" differently. And as most media reports are not likely to go into details in that regard, they're worthless (no robust information) or counterproductive (resulting in incomplete information appearing as self-contradict) as sources.

What to do? Document key steps in vaccine research as they occur, but refrain from using media speculation about future timeframes. That way, we can give clear, accurate and reliable information. 2001:4DD1:5030:0:6834:8598:D1E5:CC5E (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Lancet & Academic Task Force

Hello @all !
As said above, some very meaningful academic source are emerging allowing to upgrade the sources and quality of this article. thelancet.com/coronavirus is a great source with articles which are really worth reading, copying-citing, massively integrating into this this virus article. There surely are other that we may gain to isolate, point out here, and systematically integrate. Yug (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Date	<ref name="">	Title	Action/Section planned/successfully integrated to wp article and username if you wish to
2020.01.31	<ref name="LancetNowcasting"/>	"Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study"	(add your name)
2020.01.30	<ref name="Lancet99cases" />	Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study	{{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/Symptoms}} :  Done Yug (talk) {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/Treatments given}} :  Done Yug {{2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/Patients}} : to do store 01.24 and 01.31-table1 data.
2020.01.24	<ref name="LancetNovel"/>	A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern	(add your name)
2020.01.24	<ref name="LancetPatients"/>	Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China	(add your name)

"Treatments given" template

I have some qualms about including the "treatments given" template here, although I respect that you took the time to put it together. First, the data is based on a small sample size (n=99) from a single hospital. We have no way of knowing whether this range of treatment is representative of treatments being given overall during the outbreak, or how the condition of the patients compared to patients elsewhere (or in later cases). Second, the range of palliative treatments given is very different from an assessment of the effectiveness of the treatments, which is what is implied by the current section title "Treatment research". Third, I think it detracts from the focus of the article on the virus itself. It is true that it may soon be time to make an article on the specific syndrome caused by the virus, but until that time I don't think this article is the right place to be putting additional information on the symptoms. We have already reduced the focus on signs and symptoms over the last week. The paragraph on mortality has crept back in to the epidemiology section, but I think it would be a mistake to expand the "Treatment research" section to attempt to describe what is taking place on the ground during the outbreak. I have not removed the template yet but would like to hear from others on this subject. Dekimasuよ! 13:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dekimasu. I have the same concern for 3, article scope. For 1 & 2, I and we should accept this n=99 and treatments are the current state of the art, as of published literature. Well sourced state of the art information must be included. Question is where. Yug (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between data and knowledge, though. We need to ask ourselves what the data in the table tells us about the virus. In this case, I think the answer is very little. (In fact, many of the treatments listed were given to combat conditions unrelated to the coronavirus, like fungal infections. And I am pretty sure the WHO has specifically said that practitioners should *not* give 2019-nCoV patients corticosteroids, so if the purpose is to circulate the best information possible, this is not necessarily it.) Dekimasuよ! 14:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Overall the treatment section has on occasion contained dubious statements by commmercial interests with a product to sell, an I have trimmed it more than once. I would certainly be uncomfortable were it to grow much more than it has already. I described this issue on this page, as "a solution looking for a problem" once a mildly notorious failed Ebola drug crept into at one point. Wikimucker (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimucker, what about the template in question here? (I have removed some more statements with possible commercial motivations again today, although it is important to assume good faith.) Dekimasuよ! 04:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Still looks good Dekimasu, like you implied yesterday there will inevitably come a point where drugs*.* are being mentioned or trialled and that probably will mean a separate 'treatments' article at that point. I have not seen anything that was not a good faith edit to be fair. Wikimucker (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Falsely describing infectious during incubation claim

So the virology section's statement about the possibility of infection during incubation accurately describes the WHO's statement on the matter, however the article implies there are multiple studies saying that it is infectious during incubation. I.e. "Studies have shown that the virus can be infectious even during the incubation period".

There was a single published study, a case report of a patient in Germany. The wiki article has two citations, one to the study and another to a statement by someone commenting on that exact same study. It is misleading to suggest there are multiple studies and to imply that this is some notable element of the threat of this virus. The article should be reworded to clarify that there is only a single case report of a patient infecting others before symptoms began, to not mention that the contact with the index patient was only 2 days before clinically significant symptoms did appear in that index patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.199.92 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this has been altered sufficiently now. The process often makes the sentences evolve over time, and here it was a case in which the original contrast was with a sentence on the American CDC which claimed the virus was not infectious during the incubation period. Dekimasuよ! 02:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the text in chapter Infection is not correct, see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong. Both citations for "There is some evidence that the virus can be infectious even during the incubation period", refer to the same German paper that appears to be wrong. Incubation period is the time before symptons appear. And in the German case the chinese woman had symptons. The second reference I have for this is in German and is used by the German version of this article https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/109147/2019-nCoV-Doch-keine-Uebertragung-durch-asymptomatische-Infizierte-in-Bayern. Malanoqa (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I read through the German one first and it appears to be making a careful distinction between being asymptomatic and cases that have "very light symptoms." The sciencemag cite seems to be good enough to show what you want to say here: the German study was flawed, so we can't support what we have now. The article also says "The fact that the paper got it wrong doesn’t mean transmission from asymptomatic people doesn’t occur. Fauci, for one, still believes it does. 'This evening I telephoned one of my colleagues in China who is a highly respected infectious diseases scientist and health official,' he says. 'He said that he is convinced that there is asymptomatic infection and that some asymptomatic people are transmitting infection.' But even if they do, asymptomatic transmission likely plays a minor role in the epidemic overall, WHO says." Some version of this is probably what things should be altered to now; we already have the second sentence in place. Dekimasuよ! 11:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dekimasu for changing the text. For me it looks good now.Malanoqa (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove sprotect?

I think the IP edits are very useful for a rapidly changing topic (and it's sufficiently removed from the outbreak article imo). Thoughts on keeping it off sprotect as much as possible? Thanks Samir 17:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe semi-protect expires within the next 24 hours. As always, it will depend on how many disruptive editors there are.... Dekimasuよ! 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll monitor as well, ideally aiming for minimal protection times to avoid vandalism but still allow useful anon edits. Samir 18:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Not looking good so far. I left a COI notification, which was ignored, before the arrival of another likely associated editor who may have been canvassed offline. But I won't violate the 3RR, so please do help monitor these and other changes. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Followed by vandalism, followed by a copyvio.... Dekimasuよ! 06:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Another editor, in the account's first edit on Wikipedia, has added the same text and same source for the fourth time, down to the same nonstandard capitalization. Someone else will need to handle it this time, maybe including an SPI. And so so far, not the IP editors but accounts that signed up for the first time today are the ones causing trouble. Dekimasuよ! 06:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Need to be careful what "studies" we allow in the article

Before adding any research papers to the main article, please review

• Lee, Stephanie (2020-02-04). "Shoddy Coronavirus Studies Are Going Viral And Stoking Panic: Scientists are rapidly posting findings about the new coronavirus outbreak online, accelerating the speed of scientific discoveries — and of misinformation". BuzzFeed. Archived from the original on 2020-02-05.

and make sure the research is sound. Research, both solid and not so solid, is moving very fast. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I consider it very inappropriate to troll this otherwise relevant discussion so blatantly. A reminder to vet your sources from no less than BuzzFeed? Give me a break! 89.206.112.110 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a BuzzFeed News story not Buzzfeed. BuzzFeed News, unlikely BuzzFeed is an RS (WP:Perennial sources) so they should not be conflated. I would still urge great caution with them on science matters, however the general advice in this case seems sound and no one is proposing adding them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen one reference to the pangolin story added here yet. On one hand, this is a positive development. On the other hand, I feel like it might be better to get ahead of any overconfident additions by adding a reference to the "intermediate host cannot be ruled out" sentence in the lede—that is, pointing out that the pangolin claims are from news stories and press releases, not the unpublished study that is supposed to have been referenced in them. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Another example is scientific correspondence. We have let a few of these through so far, but we need to be aware that something like this does not serve as evidence of ocular transmission, only suggests it as a topic for further study, and being sourced to The Lancet doesn't mean it gets a free pass as fact. Dekimasuよ! 03:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A review article on 2019-nCoV

Dear All,

I had recently added a review article to this page that provided a bird's eye view on the novel coronavirus. Since one of the members had accused me of having COI, I would appreciate it if you could evaluate the review yourself and decide on whether it is worth being mentioned here on Further Readings. Considering the large number of published papers on Coronavirus, this resource could provide a concise overview of what is happening.

Here is the DOI: 10.15171/ijoem.2020.1921

Thank you, --StatWikiped (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I find your review OK, and Wikipedia prefer reviews, not original research. Clowns und Kinder (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Context is here. The removal/readdition is here. Personally, I am fine with having the link in the Further reading section if other editors here judge that it should be included on its merits. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Estimating the fatality rate

It is difficult for many reasons, especially when we are clear about the difference of statistical data, and reality. (e.g., How many are infected for real, vs official numbers?) But we could at least give a rough estimate if we put the fatalities against the respective population. HOWEVER look at this example:

• Fatalities NOW of 500, on average x days after these got recognized as positive.
• Positives count NOW of 30,000 but that's not our population
• Positives count x days before NOW -- is that our population?

If, for example, most of the deceased suffered for 10 days from entry into the statistic (probably first test result after admission to hospital?) to death, then the actual fatality rate of 2019-nCoV could go beyond 10%. (I hope it's not.)

So here is my question: Is it possible to have such a figure 'x' ? At least for the shutdown Hubei cities we could have some data already. But do they record them, do they publish ? --rosetta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.213.149.52 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. They give an example value of 14 days here (ATM at the end of page): https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.213.149.52 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It should now be possible to discuss reliable sources related to these issues using the talk page at Talk:2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease for possible inclusion 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease#Prognosis. Now that the disease article has been split out, it makes more sense to discuss the case fatality rate issue there. If necessary, we can still discuss virulence and pathogenicity here, since those are more clearly aspects of the virus that is the core topic of this article. Dekimasuよ! 05:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI MRC outbreak research centre has come out with new estimates for both case fatality rate and infection fatality rate: https://twitter.com/MRC_Outbreak/status/1226765905306234881, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/news--wuhan-coronavirus/ (COI: spouse is coauthor of https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-2019-nCoV-severity-10-02-2020.pdf) As per Dekimasu, probably doesn't belong in this article (except for perhaps infection fatality rate in epi section? But probably not cCFR.) Mvolz (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sunda pangolin as Intermediate species

Sources: [6], [7], [8]. Ancientman0 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, see #Need to be careful what "studies" we allow in the article above. I think the current reference to it is more than adequate at this point. Once we see actual scientific studies we can reconsider, but the snake story is a good reminder not to put too much confidence in preliminary results. At the same time, if the 99% figure proves accurate there will be things to change in other parts of the article as well. Dekimasuよ! 02:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

hot wet reduces infection

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/02/08/climate-immunity-incompetence-indonesias-zero-recorded-coronavirus-cases-raise-questions.html suggests that coronaviruses including this one do not spread where there is hot wet climates. I realise this speculative - but there maybe something in it worth putting in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My guess is, probably not at this point. There are cases in a lot of hot and wet places: Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Philippines, etc. If there is medical research done on this specific coronavirus, perhaps it can be revisited, or it can be discussed further at Talk:Coronavirus for the general case. Dekimasuよ! 08:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Recovery

John Hopkins (Hospital) is able to provide amount of confirmed recovered persons. Has anyone found an official statement regarding the duration or 'wear off' by the host to recover from the virus?

Requested move 9 February 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: Speedy close. A move request was just closed earlier today. Please wait a while before initiating further move requests. El_C 19:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• 2019 novel coronavirus → 2019 Novel coronavirus
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 → Timeline of the 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in February 2020 → Timeline of the 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak in February 2020
• Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Timeline of the 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak
• Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak → Mainland China during the 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak
• 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by country and territory → 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak by country and territory

– I appreciated to the editors to rename this article from Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) to 2019 novel coronavirus. But according to many source such as CDC [9], ASM [10], Medscape [11] and many other sources, the alphabet N was capitalized. So according to grammar, the true name was 2019 Novel coronavirus (with capitalized N), not 2019 novel coronavirus (with lowercase n). This is unclear whether N in word "novel" is capitalized or not. 36.76.224.32 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support for first move only but oppose to second and sixth moves because it will affects the main article 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.65.39.38 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• It seems probable that the proposer and the vote above are the same editor working from different IPs. Dekimasuよ! 14:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  Dekimasu, Maybe, but Indonesia is a large country I note they share only the first level 36.*.*.* subnet. The close timing of the posts is somewhat suspicious, but it's really hard to say, in absence of definitive proof, particularly as the second IP editor opposes all the other moves, no? Doug Mehus T·C 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• It would be a good idea to have the titles align eventually. However, strong oppose all and request speedy close. First, none of the sources cited capitalize the "N" in running text. They only capitalize "2019 Novel Coronavirus" when using title case. On Wikipedia, our titles are written in WP:LOWERCASE (sentence case) which yields "2019 novel coronavirus". Even in title case, capitalizing the N and not the C would be deprecated. Second, a request was just closed today on this page. Third, the idea that 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak is the "main article" of the page on the virus itself seems misguided. Fourth, please do not request page moves that you do not support: a particular move does not need to be discussed unless there is someone asking for it. Dekimasuよ! 14:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Well, the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak page is failed to move to the 2019–20 Novel coronavirus outbreak twice in this month, and then this are happening, and not all of articles who have a 'Wuhan coronavirus' name are requested to move, so... request speedy close. --91.207.170.251 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait on the formal nomenclature via the NCBI, shall we? kencf0618 (talk)

• Oppose and speedy close per Dekimasu. Can an uninvolved admin have a look at this and put it out of its misery please? Maybe even impose a moratorium unless a significant change in circumstances occurs? It seems like we've spent almost the entire period since the virus was first announced arguing about its name.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support for first move only per above editors, and because it's Novel is a proper noun. Wikipedia has no rules with respect to frequency of move requests; only guidelines which are notionally policies. However, we have to remember WP:IAR is our most important policy and that WP:COMMONSENSE is said to be a suprapolicy. Eh, Amakuru? As an aside, this was an inappropriate bundling attempt, I think. WP:RS refer to the Wuhuan outbreak of Novel coronavirus; thus, those others should remain. Doug Mehus T·C 19:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents

Can someone add the information please?

We therefore reviewed the literature on all available information about the persistence of human and veterinary coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces as well as inactivation strategies with biocidal agents used for chemical disinfection, e.g. in healthcare facilities. The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days, but can be efficiently inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents such as 0.05-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate are less effective. As no specific therapies are available for 2019-nCoV, early containment and prevention of further spread will be crucial to stop the ongoing outbreak and to control this novel infectious thread.

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext

--80.187.106.5 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

✗ Not done. This has been removed from the article repeatedly, not least because the review does not include any studies at all on this particular coronavirus. The WHO also writes "From previous analysis, we know coronaviruses do not survive long on objects" (Myth busters). As before, I suggest bringing this up at Talk:Coronavirus if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 15:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Cytokine storm

WUHAN VIRUS/Experts find how moderate 2019-nCoV infection ends with death cytokine storm as possible cause for some of the deaths of otherwise healthier individuals in current outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus.Mercurywoodrose2600:1700:5FA1:61B0:B917:BBF8:5992:6B9 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Animation

People's thought on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

What information does it convey? Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I had the same question. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This electron microscope image has also been added to the CDC site recently. Dekimasuよ! 08:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That's an ultrathin section. Some readers might have difficulty understanding the image. (Not a reason in itself for not using it of course). Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 Hushskyliner (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI on naming

COVID-19: a disease caused by the 2019-nCoV

2019-nCoV: a new coronavirus first identified by health authorities in Wuhan, thought to derive from anteaters and ultimately bats

The outbreak that's currently taking place should be called "2019-20 COVID-19 epidemic" no matter how clumsy that sounds,similar to the 2009 flu pandemic (which was known at the time as Swine Flu), with redirects from the numerous nicknames given to the epidemic. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I basically agree with this assessment. We are still waiting on the name for the virus from ICTV. Dekimasuよ! 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Name Update to Match WHO Decision

As of 10:37 EST, the WHO has announced their official name for this virus: Covid-19:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/world-health-organization-names-the-new-coronavirus-covid-19.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/6535635/coronavirus-name-covid19/

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

Is it worth updating this page title to reflect the change, and redirect the old title?

SpurriousCorrelation (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As written above by SomethingNastyHere, the WHO named the disease that is caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus COVID-19. It did not rename the virus, as far as we can tell at this time. That announcement is still expected from the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. "COVID-19" is short for "coronavirus disease 2019", making it clear that it is a name for the disease, not the virus. (What is less clear is whether the WHO cares very much about the distinction between the species and the disease, since it mostly cares about controlling the disease.) Dekimasuよ! 16:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the clarification. SpurriousCorrelation (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Add the official name of the 2019-nCoV (referred to as X) virus as Corvid-19 (refereed to as Y) to the page and change X to Y in most instances, source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51466362 Gorge1234567890 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Per source - The virus itself has been designated SARS-CoV-2 by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Covid-2019 is the disease. Hzh (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Hzh, the Virus is named SARS-CoV-2 as Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 and the disease is named CORVID-19 as Coronavirus disease 2019. --Eric1212 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here: Talk:2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease. We should keep the WP:COMMONNAME. Graham Beards (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with Talk:2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease, as far as i know, people are searching SARS for the 2003-2004 events... Actually, i consider SARS 2 / SARS-CoV-2 as a WP:COMMONNAME as coronavirus alone can't be used. --Eric1212 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We need to see evidence from reliable sources for the latter. Graham Beards (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This answer should be clarified very soon as this is a current outbreak, seeking for newspaper should be very fast 1-3 days. Pro's seems to agree though : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/sars-cov-2-seqs/ --Eric1212 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Move page to severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus

The official scientific and medical name of the virus is now SARS-CoV, eventually we have to stop calling it nCoV because there will come a time that there will be a new coronavirus and will be Ned novel coronavirus Hushskyliner (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)