Talk:Coronavirus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2020

Why is the page extended protected? Can you reduce the protection level to semi-protected? Please change from X to Y 148.74.247.125 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done If you want to lower the protection level you need to take it to WP:RfPP. It was made extended protected a while ago due to persistent vandalism by autoconfirmed users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating a statistic

Hi, in the Common cold section,

• These coronaviruses cause about 15% of common colds should be updated to
• These coronaviruses cause about 15–30% of common colds

"...only two HCoVs (HCoV-229E and HCoV-OC43) were known, both causing mild upper respiratory symptoms when inoculated to healthy adult volunteers (45). Two more HCoVs, HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1, were identified in 2004 and 2005, respectively (31, 127). Together, these four globally distributed HCoVs presumably contribute to 15–30% of cases of common cold in humans"

References

This would replace a reference from 2010 with a more recent MEDRS-compliant reference from 2019. Thanks, Elysia (AR) (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The about 15% is not a bad estimate, although the reference could be updated for a newer one. Some good studies I have come across are Coronavirus occurrence and transmission over 8 years in the HIVE cohort of households in Michigan which came out in 2020, Human Coronaviruses Associated with Upper Respiratory Tract Infections in Three Rural Areas of Ghana, and The dominance of human coronavirus OC43 and NL63 infections in infants.

The Hive study had a sample size of 7469 (acute respiratory infections) with the percentage caused by coronaviruses for different years:

2010 (14.8%), 2011 (14.1%), 2012 (16.3%), 2013 (14.9%), 2014 (8.3%), 2015 (11.7%), 2016 (13.2%), 2017 (10.2%). The total average, which the paper does not give, equals 2010-2017 (12.4%).

The study in Ghana had a sample of size of 593 (acute respiratory tract infections) with the percentage caused by coronaviruses equal to 13.7%.

The infant study had a sample size of 1471 (hospitalized with respiratory infection) with the percentage caused by coronaviruses equal to 14%.

An article that goes over the different human coronaviruses from 2018 states "Depending on the study setting, up to 20% of tests in individuals with respiratory disease yielded evidence of acute infection with these viruses", which means an upper bound of 20%. The Hive study is the best of three. If a range is needed, one can drop the highest and lowest, to get 10-15%. Otherwise from the three studies 14% is about right or for simplicity around 15%. Maybe the hive reference could be added for that sentence. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The first three sources you've linked to are primary sources. Per WP:MEDRS, any biomedical content has to be cited to a secondary source. Elysia (AR) (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Affect/effect

>> The virus is of concern to the poultry industry because of the high mortality from infection, its rapid spread, and affect on production.

That should be effect, not affect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafflesia (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Done! Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2020

103.221.233.12 (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)MARK ITS DANGEROUSNESS

 Not done. You would need to provide the actual wording for your suggested change, and provide a source to support that change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll also add that the second sentence, "In humans, these viruses cause respiratory tract infections that can range from mild to lethal", does seem to convey the danger, and the "Infection in humans" section explains the range of dangers in some detail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

When we all ..

The following discussion 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.

---

переживём - станем пережитками.

А когда пережуём - кем станем - не знаю ..

P.S. Vopros! .. ? 176.59.204.119 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Translation according to DeepL: "if we survive, we'll be remnants. And when we do, I don't know who we'll be..." poignant, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 23 July 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Coronavirus was discovered in 2019 Autumn, not 1930s. 2001:7D0:8574:4D80:7970:8EBC:BCE2:C15A (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not true for the group of viruses that now includes the one causing the pandemic. See the very top of the article, which explains the distinction. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Count of coronavirus types is wrong

The line reads:

Six species of human coronaviruses are known, with one species subdivided into two different strains, making seven strains of human coronaviruses altogether.

The line should start "Seven species", not six. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenTomer (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That means six species, and seven strains (where two strains are of the same species). So I don't see any error. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 05 August 2020

See: COVID-19 identified https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/U07.1 COVID-19 probable https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/U07.2

others will be following in the next days

 Not done: This article is about the group of viruses, not SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Nicotine as Antidote

I realise this is controversial, but several reputable news outlets report that nicotine appears to frustrate Covid's ability to outmanoeuvre the immune system. The bizarre notion that nicotine patches may stem the tide has been seriously floated (esp. in France). Not saying an addictive substance that crosses the blood-brain barrier is an answer to anyone's prayers, but if true, it may deserve a mention. I do not consider myself remotely qualified to format the wording of such a thing. I'll leave this one to the smarter heads. Hanoi Road (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really the article to discuss this, this is better suited the COVID 19 article, see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), Wikipedia has stringent sourcing guidelines for medical content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thy for mentioning it. I'm going to research that. Coming in from research of CBD for Long Covid patients. SvenAERTS (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's one of those publiations "Does Nicotine Prevent Cytokine Storms in COVID-19?" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7704168/ SvenAERTS (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

it is now in 2020 14.200.159.167 (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! Gentle reminder that the disease caused by the coronavirus, "COVID-19", will always be connected to the year 2019, because that was when it began to wreak its havoc on human beings. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your interest! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

we would like to edit the name of coronavirus to it's orgininal name of wuhan virus .Please let us edit if you have an iota of humanity left in you to help people identify the culprits . if not you might be a helping China with th Wuhan virus ABHIJNANG (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. "Identify the culprits"? I think you want Fox News, not Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

allow changes please AlexOFF1983 (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps come back and ask again, once you've made some constructive edits elsewhere, other than multiple rapid self-reversions. Esowteric+Talk 10:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests are intended to ask for a specific change to be made, not to request acces to the article itself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

I would like to edit this and mention that Moscow supposedly made a cure for COVID-19, and say it might've been caused by bats on the wet market. Serfscoot (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

The first sentence of the article contains a grammar error. "Coronaviruses are a group of RNA viruses..." is wrong, because "group" is singular. It should be "Coronaviruses are RNA viruses..." Mlb96 (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done, grammar is fine. HeartGlow ^(talk) 05:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You would never say, for example, "Dogs are an animal," you would say "Dogs are animals." Same principle applies here. Mlb96 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm reactivating this edit request because I want a second opinion. I am still convinced that the way it is worded now is improper. If another editor disagrees with me, then I'll drop it. Mlb96 (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:GOCE editor weighing in here. (My participation in that group may be perceived as adding value by some editors, but my response should also be weighed on its merits.) This grammar is acceptable. "Group" is a collective, not a singular, noun. The construction is the same as normal constructions like "The Yankees are a baseball team..." or "The Smiths are a family...". The proposed change would remove the useful notion that these viruses form a group rather than being a few random viruses from among the millions that exist. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Mlb96 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Coronaviridae

In the intro, this lemme (Coronavirus) is defined as describing the group of coronaviruses. By this, it is identical with the virus family described in Coronaviridae. Therefore, the articles should be merged: There is no difference. Two articles about the same thing might just generate duplications and confusionon. Thanks.--Ernsts (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

See de:Coronavirus (disambiguation!)--Ernsts (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, coronavirus is now synonymous with Orthocoronavirinae. Ruslik_Zero 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirinae also includes Letovirinae, which isn't a coronavirus, therefore they aren't synonymous Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

size of the virus

"The genome size of coronaviruses ranges from approximately 26 to 32 kilobases, one of the largest among RNA viruses"

I received a text who could well be a hoax who tries to sound official and on the same time comforting. They claim the size of the virus is huge and set two numbers in nm. Than they conclude that it is so big that every mask is sufficient to stop the virus. I don't say it is what you say, but perhaps it can be formulated more clearly. I have the suspicion that the author red this page and then was making it's own conclusions. And not red a site like this one. https://www.news-medical.net/health/The-Size-of-SARS-CoV-2-Compared-to-Other-Things.aspx

Last I checked, texts weren't reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Guys, read the text: "genome size" refers to the NUMBER of items in the genome . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.190.135 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

In section 3.3.1 "Cell entry" - the fifth word from the end reads "envelop". It should be written "envelope". Lowerunit (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done -ink&fables «talk» 04:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Spanish version is not linked

Do not know why but the link to the Spanish version is missing. From Spanish version you can access the English version though. Junjan (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Junjan, es:Coronavirus redirects to es:Orthocoronavirinae. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit to the Coronavirus disease 2020 wiki page from a graduate student for a final project

I believe that the sentence below could be added to the end of the paragraph under Passive Antibodies on the Coronavirus disease 2019 page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019, in order to fully conclude the paragraph and cite a source that researches the efficacy of convalescent plasma transmissions:

An article published in September of 2020 surveys data and concludes that convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in critically ill patients, increase neutralizing antibody titers, benefit clinical symptoms after administration, and evidence shows that the convalescent plasma transmissions were safe and well tolerated by all participants in all studies.

The paragraph would now read ... It has been proposed that selection of broad-neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV might be useful for treating not only COVID-19 but also future SARS-related CoV infections.[424] Other mechanisms, however, such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and/or phagocytosis, may be possible.[422] Other forms of passive antibody therapy, for example, using manufactured monoclonal antibodies, are in development.[422] Production of convalescent serum, which consists of the liquid portion of the blood from recovered patients and contains antibodies specific to this virus, could be increased for quicker deployment. An article published in September of 2020 surveys data and concludes that convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in critically ill patients, increase neutralizing antibody titers, benefit clinical symptoms after administration, and evidence shows that the convalescent plasma transmissions were safe and well tolerated by all participants in all studies.

The source for this sentence is Rajendran, Krishnasamy. “Convalescent Plasma Transfusion for the Treatment of COVID‐19: Systematic Review.” Journal of medical virology 92, no. 9 (September 2020): 1475–1483.

I believe that this would allow the wiki page on the coronavirus to be a little more up to date on treatment options for critically ill patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florencegirl (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez responded to this over at Coronavirus disease 2019. Diff here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

I suggest that the following ref is added at the top of

== Further reading ==

Acheson, N. H. (2011). "Chapter 14: Coronaviruses". Fundamentals of molecular virology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 159–171. ISBN 9780470900598.

IMHO this is a good introduction into the "workings" of this virus type Easyloc (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Easyloc:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

First use of a vaccine against coronavirus

@Guest2625: I added a reference to the first use of a vaccine against the subject virus and it was removed at [1], citing recentism. I don't understand the logic of that edit. Certainly the first use of a vaccine should be in the article and the COVID-19 pandemic was not a trivial event. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for putting it back in. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Image is false and shuld be replaced

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11729122 explains this. In an encyclopedia we should be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank-you for pointing out the error. The error was corrected on the wiki commons. --Guest2625 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Diametrical size

It is stated that "Their size is highly variable and generally is an average diameter of 120 nm.". This is not true, strictly speaking. It gives the impression that the average diameter is strictly 120 nm, which is false. Also, stating that it's highly variable in size is not supported by the used source whatsoever. What constitutes "highly variable" in microbiology?

The used source itself says "Virions have typically been reported to have average diameters of 80–120 nm, [...]". Which means the average is varying around 80 to 120 nm, not simply 120.

A more precise formulation would be something like "Their diametrical average is (reportedly) variable, typically between 80 to 120 nm.". Lukan27 (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Done, and thank you! BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request (new image 2)

Under Coronavirus#Origin please replace:

[[File:Animal origins of human coronaviruses.webp|thumb|Origins of human coronaviruses with possible intermediate hosts]]

with:

[[File:Animal origins of human coronaviruses.png|thumb|Origins of human coronaviruses with possible intermediate hosts]]

I've removed the image border but could not open or overwrite the original webp file, so I uploaded it as a separate png file. nagualdesign 23:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. By the way, Nagualdesign, you are should be (amended at 04:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)) extended confirmed and are able to directly edit the page; you don't need to submit edit requests to get things approved. You can still discuss adding/changing/removing content here on the talk page if you think it might be controversial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenryuu. I just double-checked and I'm unable to edit the page because there are no edit buttons showing, either on the section headers or at the top of the page. Is there something I'm missing? nagualdesign 04:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nagualdesign, strange. Now that I've taken a look at your user rights groups, it appears that Xaosflux helped you vanish in 2018, and you're not even considered to be autoconfirmed. You may want to discuss this with them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Tenryuu. nagualdesign 05:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this correct?

If you wish to alter/change the image "file:Animal origins of human coronaviruses.webp" that's great, just make sure to keep the pangolin out of the image and have a question mark. That is why I made the file:Animal origins of human coronaviruses.webp. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops! Mea culpa. I hadn't spotted that you'd swapped the pangolin for a question mark. I've updated File:Animal origins of human coronaviruses.png to match File:Animal origins of human coronaviruses.webp (minus the borders), so you can put it back into the article. Sorry about that. nagualdesign 10:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that the image has been fixed, I've placed it back in. Thanks for catching that, Guest2625. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

• Michelle Roberts (2021). "UK finds more coronavirus cases with 'concerning' mutations". BBC News. 1: S3–4. doi:10.26719/2021.02.supp1.S3. PMID 55900625. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmid= value (help); Vancouver style error: name in name 1 (help)
• Michelle Roberts (2021). "UK finds more coronavirus cases with 'concerning' mutations". BBC News. 1: S3–4. doi:10.26719/2021.02.supp1.S3. PMID 55900625. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmid= value (help); Vancouver style error: name in name 1 (help) 184.190.126.220 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanks for the sources, but what exactly are you hoping to add? An "X to Y" format for what you want the added content to say and where to add it would be ideal. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request (new image)

I've updated File:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg to make the labels and arrows more legible but they're still difficult to read at thumbnail size. Please could you edit Coronavirus#Structure and change:

[[File:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg|alt=Cross-sectional model of a coronavirus|thumb|Cross-sectional model of a coronavirus]]

to:

{{wide image|File:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg|600px|alt=Cross-sectional model of a coronavirus|Cross-sectional model of a coronavirus}}

Obviously I'm having to guess the ideal size. 500px may be adequate but I have used images upto 600px in articles (such as Super-Kamiokande#Solar neutrino) and tested it with different screen sizes/devices and it works fine. As long as the text is clearly legible and the arrows are not completely lost it should help to properly illustrate that section without the reader having to click on the image. Cheers. nagualdesign 07:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Cross-sectional model of a coronavirus

...Actually, 450px is large enough. You could just add |450px to the current right-aligned thumbnail, avoiding a large amount of whitespace to the sides. Cheers. nagualdesign 07:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 10:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. nagualdesign 11:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Guest2625: I see that you've replaced the image in the article with File:Vaccines-08-00587-g002-A.png using the edit summary, "More informative image". If this is simply the labelling please let me know and I can update File:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg (assuming that the image of the virus itself is accurate). Ideally, the labels ought to be clearly legible at thumbnail size and directly relate to what is written in the article text (ie, to illustrate the text), so "(+)ssRNA + N" for example doesn't seem particularly helpful. If we can work out a happy medium where the article text is fully informative and the image labels are clear I can easily update the image. Regards, nagualdesign 00:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Structure of a coronavirus

This image is more informative, because it is more accurate and contains a lot more information in it then the above image. The information in the image is discussed in the structure section. Note: the Spike (S) protein is shown as a trimer; the HE protein is shown as a dimer; the E protein is shown as a channel protein; the M protein is shown as having a triple transmembrane region; and lastly the nucleocapsid (N) proteins are on the RNA strand in a bead like fashion as discussed in the structure section.

It is not clear to me if relabeling the image with written out labels for the letters (S, HE, M, N, and E) is necessary since these abbreviations are discussed in the section. It seems as the full labels might clutter up the image. Perhaps the caption box can be expanded to spell out the abbreviations, although the abbreviations were spelled out in the introductory virus infobox and in the article. --Guest2625 (talk)

Fair enough. If the picture of the virus itself is more accurate then we should stick with File:Vaccines-08-00587-g002-A.png. I'm still not sure what "(+)ssRNA + N" means though (or rather, what the (+)ss means). The image file page goes into a lot of detail but I'm still none the wiser. nagualdesign 10:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point about the positive-sense, single-stranded RNA (+ssRNA) abbreviation not being defined in the description. I've updated the description on the wiki commons to include the abbreviation. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please change weight to mass

This is related to the coronavirus page. The.real.curious.george (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

The page says thay the average _weight_ of a Coronavirus is 40,000 KDa. Since Da is the unit of _mass_, we should use mass and not weight. The.real.curious.george (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

All set, I also wikilinked the term Molecular mass. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion

nominate this artcila for deletionn (April Fools Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:30B1:3A00:4479:83C5:9430:7025 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

There are four big meta-analyses projects published on the prevalence and characteristics of fever, headache, smell dysfunction and taste disorder. Could anyone please cite these four excellent and reliable meta-analysis papers to this article?

Fever https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/citation?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249788

Headache https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.562634/full

Smell dysfunction https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lary.29286

Taste disorders https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0194599820981018 Ayoncx70 (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Coronavirus=/=COVID-19. This article should attempt to provide a broad overview of coronaviruses generally, and not focus on specific symptoms of COVID-19 unless they have been shown to be widely distributed among coronaviruses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Any use for this diagram?

I found this diagram of the coronavirus's N protein made by Oregon State University while browsing through Flickr. It's all over my head, though, so I figured I'd post on the talk page. Could this image be of any use here? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SARS-CoV-2 without background.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Eight human coronavirus?

A study published in May 20, 2021 reported a variant of the canine coronavirus that contains mutations in the spike protein from human coronaviruses, feline coronavirus and swine transmissible gastroenteritis virus which was identified in samples of seven kids with pneumonia from Malaysia (taken between 2017 and 2018). The name given to this novel coronavirus is CCoV-HuPn-2018. Should it be added to the "Infection in humans" list?--Kj1123 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add, there's also another study published not so long ago (in March) about a porcine deltacoronavirus associated to a feverish illness in three children from Haiti between 2014 and 2015. Although there's much less information on this one.--Kj1123 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Typo

The penultimate sentence in the Origin section starts with "Phylogentically", which I'm guessing should be Phylogenetically. Ryz (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. PassedDown (talk | contribs) 22:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Etymology

Some comment could be made on how the name is clearly an English neologism and not a classical compound (that would be coronovirus). In idiomatic English this kind of interfix freestyle seems to be well-established (e.g. formulaic poetry, operatic bass), but for many L2 speakers it may seem semiliterate. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Infections in Humans

Vcpmartin (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Section states there are 6 coronaviruses known to infect humans (with a further split of two subtypes without a clear indication of which one has subtypes). It then lists the current main 7. Is the initial 6 a simple carryover from pre-COVID-19? Vcpmartin (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

Hi my name is David Baltimore and I found some very incorrect information on this page so please do me the kindness of letting me change it.

                   -Sincerely David Baltimore Johnnyackley06 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @Johnnyackley06: You may start directly editing the article once you are WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. Until then, please describe what the incorrect content is, what it should be, and provide a reliable source to back it up. Please make sure the reliable source complies with WP:MEDRS. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate coronavirus image

Illustration created at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reveals ultrastructural morphology exhibited by coronaviruses; note the spikes that adorn the outer surface, which impart the look of a corona surrounding the virion.

Coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2

A user wants to add essentially a duplicate image to the structure section of the article. The analogous image with more detail is in the infobox. Also in the structure section there is a similar diagram image of a coronavirus. The image is excessive and does not add to the article. Therefore, per MOS:Imagerelevance, I suggest not adding it. I look forward to hearing other editors' opinions and moving forward with the consensus that forms. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This image or edited versions of it are three out of the first ten hits for me from a Google image search, so I'd personally include it in this article out of sheer recognizability to the reader. Like the cited paper suggests, it's become something like an icon rather than an image people understand how to interpret, so we're doing readers a service by explaining it. I'd leave it out of other articles in the topic area though, with the possible exception of SARS-CoV-2 itself, now that we have a similar but more accurate model to use elsewhere. I don't really have strong feelings on the subject, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

For me it's an either or question. The article can have the old image or the new image. These images are essentially the same, except the new one is scientifically more accurate. Having both images serves no purpose for this article which is about coronaviruses. Also, it should be noted that the virus article which is a feature article switched to the new image. I agree that the red one is iconic for SARS CoV 2 and should be most probably in that article. I also think that it would be smart to keep on using the red image in the pandemic infobox since details are not important in that location. I'm leaning towards keeping the new image in the article, but I'm open to the red one based on what others think. I'm against having both near analogous images in the article, which is just splitting the baby in half. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the teal one, if just one. 99 times out of 100 I'd agree they're redundant, but in this case there's an opportunity for a teachable moment given the ubiquity of the red one. Passing thought: either here or in SARS-CoV-2, show both images side by side, captioned with the proteins labeled in the same order for both, so readers can orient themselves by directly comparing the red one they've seen everywhere to a more physically realistic version of the same thing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The new one is more accurate. Because the older, inaccurate version has been popular elsewhere is no reason to keep it and the false depth of field on it looks silly. Everyone probably thinks coronaviruses are red by now. Graham Beards (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Notes/Citations

References

Requested move 18 August 2021

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: withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure)  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Coronavirus → Orthocoronavirinae – In some RS Coronavirus could mean only members of Orthocoronavirinae, but in others all Coronaviridae could be meant. Because Coronaviridae is a family and Orthocoronavirinae is its subfamily, I propose to redirect Coronavirus request to Coronaviridae and move this page to Orthocoronavirinae. Delasse (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Delasse (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Most non-virologists find the ICTV classification thoroughly confusing and I think problems arise from its use as a basis for article titles. We should use the common names where possible. "Coronavirus" as now become a common name. Graham Beards (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. (i.e. why guinea pig is not called cavia porcellus, etc.)_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per commonname. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move per all above. Especially with the whole COVID-19 thing still going on, "coronavirus" is the common name. O.N.R. ^(talk) 22:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Graham Beards @Old Naval Rooftops @Randy Kryn @Zxcvbnm I'm not opposing that "coronavirus" is the common name. But this name should be used for the whole Coronaviridae family, not only to its subfamily. Thus I propose that this article will be renamed to Orthocoronavirinae and Coronaviridae will be renamed to Coronavirus. Delasse (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  It should have been a double move request then, so you should probably remedy that in the actual template. As it is, it's requesting a single move and that's it. However, that said, the article on Coronaviridae states that only Orthocoronavirinae are known as Coronaviruses by scientists, so the argument would need to be more clearly demonstrating that is actually false. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  I provided Britannica link below, but you can also check it yourself in scholar.google.com Delasse (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Coronaviridae are classified into two subfamilies: Letovirinae, which contains the only genus: Alphaletovirus; and Orthocoronavirinae ( commonly called "coronaviruses"), which consists of alpha, beta, gamma, and deltacoronaviruses. Graham Beards (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

But Britannica define Coronavirus as any virus belonging to the family Coronaviridae. Therefore you are not right. Better to phrase your classification like this: Coronaviridae ( commonly called "coronaviruses") are classified into two subfamilies: Letovirinae and Orthocoronavirinae. Delasse (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are you citing Britannica (a tertiary source with no expertise in virology) for this? Plenty of other sources contradict this. For instance this paper on coronavirus taxonomy [2] Coronaviruses (CoVs) are members of the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae (formally known as Coronavirinae) in the family Coronaviridae, order Nidovirales, following the current classification of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Probably you are right. Thank you everyone for an explanation. This requested move can be closed as not moved. --Delasse (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2021 (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.

suggested change to table

In the table mid-article, I suggest moving "Ventilatory use" from the "Symptoms" section to the "Epidemiology" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.101.242 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Addition to: Prevention and Treatment

Guidelines for the prevention of contamination and lowering the total risk of contraction of ‘’Coronavirus’’ in Human subjects to under 1%, the use of standard ABEK2P3 filter's in 40mm NATO/GOST (Military/Industrial) 3M/SCOTT Bayonet (Consumer) or SCBA closed-loop systems must be employed at all times, in known contaminated environments and or when interacting physically with known infected subjects or materials, standard decontamination practices must be maintained after direct or indirect exposure to prevent corss contamination.

(Editors Note: Sadly due to governments employing policies of resource consolidation, and lack of genaral education in the field misinformation was propagated by mainstream media outlets, despite standards such as above being fully established in the 1960s by the CDC and its international counterparts, the few 100 million USD worth in basic equipment costs would have far outweighed the human and economic losses that have occurred between the years of 2020-2021 globally.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry munday (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2021

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: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 16:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Coronavirus → Orthocoronavirinae – This article is about a subfamily of viruses. The proper and unambiguous title of this subfamily is Orthocoronavirinae. Coronavirus can mean the whole family Coronaviridae or the virus that causes the Coronavirus disease, SARS‑CoV‑2. I propose to move this page to Orthocoronavirinae. If there will be consensus for such a move, then we should decide what will be the target for Coronavirus redirect: Orthocoronavirinae or Coronaviridae. Heanor (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose move. For the pandemic, a hatnote can suffice. O.N.R. ^(talk) 04:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Coronavirus is what we know, and not the taxon name. For the same reason we have animal or dinosaur but not the proper scientific name Animalia or Dinosauria for the titles. Chhandama (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• User:Old Naval Rooftops, Chhandama, as far as I can see now in the sources by Coronavirus mainly the whole Coronaviridae family is meant. Therefore Coronaviridae should be moved to Coronavirus. --Heanor (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Have you read Wikipedia's guideline on choosing the title? You are even digressing further from your initial proposal. The fact is, not all Coronaviridae are coronaviruses, it's other subfamily members, Letovirinae are not. Your idea is like trying to merge human with mammal (by the way, we don't have Homo sapiens and Mammalia as the article titles). Coronavirus is an ambiguous common name for Orthocoronavirinae, and is universally used and known in both technical and popular media; that is it. Chhandama (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The same move request was made in August see archive 2. The consensus was not to move and the move request was withdrawn. Coronavirus is the common name of the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae in the scientific literature. The following article from the archived discussion for instance states[3]: "Coronaviruses (CoVs) are members of the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae (formally known as Coronavirinae) in the family Coronaviridae, order Nidovirales, following the current classification of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV)." The word "ortho" comes from Ancient Greek and means: straight, right, proper. Therefore, orthocoronavirinae means "proper" + "coronavirinae", that is the proper/standard group known as coronaviruses. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasoning given by Old Naval Rooftops, Chhandama, and Guest2625. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 03:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasoning given by other users.--Stebunik (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support, and move Coronavirus (disambiguation) to Coronavirus. There are 1000+ incoming links and the vast majority are related to COVID, not the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae. If Wikipedia editors are getting it wrong, Wikipedia readers are likely also ending up at an article that's not about the subject they wanted to read about. We are not serving readers by tricking them into reading about the wrong subject in the interest of having one less article with a scientific name title. Plantdrew (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:RECENTISM, any confusion between the topics of "Coronaviruses in general" and "COVID-19 and SARS-COV-2" is already explained in the hatnote. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2021 (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.

Lang link cluster split

Due to the separation of these two wikidata pages there are two article clusters in lang links - one cluster that has this english language page and another cluster for the others - this doesn't seem optimal, how can we fix this? I'd like to link from here over to sv:Coronavirus and no:Koronavirus, for example. sverdrup (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• wikidata:Q89469904
• wikidata:Q57751738

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KJohnson142.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iamqtpi. Peer reviewers: Meliboo21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

What precaution must be taken to avoid this kind of problem in future? 146.196.34.76 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Your concern is admirable but that’s a question for virologists not WP Dronebogus (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Porcine Coronavirus

Shouldn't there be something about the porcine coronavirus found in kids in Haiti? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04111-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.179.164 (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Flurona

Removed the section on flurona which was only sourced to the press. Flurona is a recent press-invented term, which gives the impression that there is a chimeric influenza-coronavirus. This is false. There is no such hybrid virus. Also there is no need to mention the case of people getting sick with two different viruses at the same time (in this case influenza virus – which type not specified – and SARS-CoV-2). This virology article is on the coronavirus family and the details of the virus family as a whole. It is not a medical article. Here is an opinion article from Scientific American on the topic: Flurona’ Is a Great Example of How Misinformation Blooms ("A catchy name has spawned false statements and panic over being infected with two viruses at once") --Guest2625 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. What should "Flurona" redirect to, if anything? User:Guest2625. Schierbecker (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think a redirect to "twindemic" would be the best option. User:Schierbecker. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Distinguishing

One time, I heard "Norovirus" AKA the Winter Stomach bug. Since it sounds similar to the coronavirus, can you distinguish Norovirus? Thanks. Mod creator (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Omicron add to generally mild?

Four human coronaviruses produce symptoms that are generally mild, even though it is contended they might have been more aggressive in the past

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/overview/clinical-spectrum/

Ansgarjohn (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"modest severity can be observed in the case of Omicron"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-022-01009-8 Ansgarjohn (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu can you look at this? Like Russian Flu (coronavirus?) Omicron is now one of the 5 (previously 4) mild forms of coronavirus. Thanks! Ansgarjohn (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Omicron is mild(er) and should be added to the other four mild seasonal coronavirusses

Omicron is mild and should be added to the other four mild seasonal coronavirusses https://time.com/6206640/covid-19-omicron-asymptomatic-infection/ and "due to immunity – mostly from vaccination, but partly from previous infection" https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/are-the-new-covid-19-variants-milder-what-to-expect-as-school-starts Ansgarjohn (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Omicron seems to be mild in countries with herd immunity

It might be time to move Omicron uo to the other common cold causing coronavirusses. Ansgarjohn (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Follow andrew tate tabon jemek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A456:CB9:1:10B9:BA80:ACFD:3C2E (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it still edit protected? The pandemic is over in English speaking countries. Omicron is mild in countries with herd immunity. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/covid-19-mild-disease-no-severity-among-indian-patients-insacog-on-omicrons-xbb-variant/article66085987.ece Ansgarjohn (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Help for image

cf the chapter on "Infection in humans", this image suggest the covid virus only enters via the lungs. Nobody has an image showing eg entering via the lungs, but also entering via the olfactory tract and optic tract? Can we get {{Help}} from the wikipadia graphics team. Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the best help is either someone who is watching this page (i.e. wait until someone replies) or via Wikipedia:Requested pictures. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Omicron is mild and should be added to that list. Thesymptoms of Omicron are the same as common cold

See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38869-1 Ansgarjohn (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"The SARS-CoV-2 symptom profile increasingly resembles that of other respiratory viruses as new strains emerge. Increased cough, sore throat, runny nose, and sneezing are associated with the emergence of the Omicron strains. As SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic, monitoring the evolution of its symptomatology associated with new variants will be critical for clinical surveillance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Omicron is mild and should be added to the other four mild seasonal coronavirusses

Four human coronaviruses produce symptoms that are generally mild, even though it is contended they might have been more aggressive in the past:

Now is the time to add Omicron to the list of four making it five. Ansgarjohn (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1714398269495788016?t=pKc1ljVaUxQEVVY54ZnXow&s=19 Ansgarjohn (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Omicron is classed as a variant of SARS-COV-2, it's not an independent mild coronavirus in its own right, which the four in the list appear to be. Also, Jimmy Wales's twitter account is not a reliable source  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)