This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
COVID-19 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Page history | ||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about COVID-19.
|
WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to . |
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
is covid 19 a IS or WAS virus
essentially what im asking is it past tense or present tense Jatanea ( talk) 20:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Robin Monotti on Twitter x:
Dr David Martin, bioweapons inspector & patents expert:
"In 2011 an antitrust collusion took place between the Wellcome Trust, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Dr Anthony Fauci’s US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which they got together and established a mandate that by 2020 the world would ‘accept a universal vaccine’, quoting Peter Daszak: ‘Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process’.
Dr. Martin's presentation in EU´s Parliament:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfLycFHBsro Kartasto ( talk) 06:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Who can explain what is the variant of interest launched by the WHO? Kartasto ( talk) 07:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
1. Common sense would suggest that a large proportion of people visiting the article would be seeking origin information, given it's 'Topic A' of conversation with regard to Covid. But the article isn't delivering for them. The information they're looking for is currently situated so far down into the article, almost at the base, that's it's unhelpful. (A cynic might think it was intentional, but I'm sure it's just a result of one million edits and edit wars screwing up logical placement.) I'd suggest a paragraph to meet origin-seeker informational needs should be in the head. And this should be titled Origin.
2. The History section (which should be more helpfully titled Origin and History) has a first sentence which currently states: "The virus is thought to be of natural animal origin, most likely through spillover infection." What proportion of scientists think that now? There's a split that's only been widening as the FOI revelations have continued, and particularly over the last 12 months. The sentence is dishonest: it needs to be qualified by saying this is a matter of debate. The sentence also cites the Proximal Origins paper, which while critically important to cite, is now widely seen as problematic by many on boths sides of the debate. So that needs also to be flagged. In short: the article seems dated, as if it was written in 2022 or even earlier. MisterWizzy ( talk) 15:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Common sense would suggest that a large proportion of people visiting the article would be seeking origin information[citation needed] Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The Dutch language version of the page includes a reference to a recently published PNAS article which talks about virus fragments assembling into complexes that may help to explain some of the effects of Long Covid infections. I think that this would be a good inclusion into the Long-term effects section of this article. VoluntasDei ( talk) 03:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
QUESTION: Is the Following NYT 4-Year Summary of Covid Studies Worth Adding (here or in some other related Wiki article)? [1] - if interested, my related NYT Comments are published here [2] - Comments Welcome - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 16:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)