Talk:COVID-19/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions about COVID-19. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
The redirect Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 13 § Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus until a consensus is reached. Wow (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Antihistamines ... prevention and treatment of Covid
Suggested edit ...
Antihistamines ... prevention and treatment of Covid
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129342/
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1202696/full
https://www.mycovidteam.com/resources/antihistamines-for-covid-19-can-benadryl-zyrtec-etc-help-with-symptoms 98.46.116.219 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now
- None of those sources establish that antihistamines prevent COVID-19. There are statements like
we believe that antihistamines may have played a role as a preventive drug for COVID-19 which should be studied
&Clinical trials will be necessary to establish the drugs’ effectiveness in prevention, early treatment and as a secondary therapy for severe COVID-19.
- The first three sources are primary sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid primary sources states
Per the Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, articles need to be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. [...] Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content.
- The mycovidteam.com does support using antihistamines for treating COVID-19 and is a tertiary source. However, the criteria for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Definitions specifies:
- A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.
- A tertiary source summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate- or graduate-level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources.
- None of those sources establish that antihistamines prevent COVID-19. There are statements like
- Thus, none of the sources that you posted qualify for this article. If you do find a source that supports these criteria, please feel free to circle back & post it. Peaceray (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Secondary sources ...
- "should be approved for emergency use towards Covid‐19 management at the moment"
- Covid‐19 Histamine theory: Why antihistamines should be incorporated as the basic component in Covid‐19 management?
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9903129
- "Antihistamines have also been shown in small studies to reduce some Long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, brain fog, and an inability to exercise"
- https://time.com/6263356/long-covid-treatment-prevention/
- https://www.prevention.com/health/a39122406/anthihistamines-long-covid-symptoms/
- https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220214/Antihistamines-may-offer-hope-for-long-COVID-patients.aspx
- https://www.livescience.com/antihistamines-to-treat-long-covid-pasc 98.46.117.90 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Mink
I request changing "strict quarantines and a mink euthanasia campaign" to "strict quarantines and the slaughter of all the country's mink"--94.189.43.2 (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
nasal vaccinations
can someone add something about the various efforts toward nasal vaccinations (such as in use in all of India!) somewhere?
pre-trial US example https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50133-2 173.222.1.147 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done Would belong at COVID-19 vaccine, if WP:MEDRS can be found. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Fatigue
what is its 41.216.201.40 (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Check out fatigue. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- see also Long_COVID 173.222.1.147 (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The relationship between community stigma towards Covid-19 patients
COVID-19 survivors are a vulnerable group at high risk when returning to their communities. Therefore, creating a safe environment and providing respectful care, including addressing complex stigma factors, is vital for developing appropriate interventions.[https://scholar.unair.ac.id/en/publications/does-digital-financial-inclusion-forecast-sustainable-economic-gr FIn4nwatin (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- While I generally agree with the majority of this you would need some research to back up your claims. The link you provided does not. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath: Perhaps they intended to post this link to Association of stigma with mental health and quality of life among Indonesian COVID-19 survivors. Fabrickator (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024
 | This edit request to COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest removing the label of "wet market" in this sentence
According to articles published in July 2022 in Science, virus transmission into humans occurred through two spillover events in November 2019 and was likely due to live wildlife trade on the Huanan wet market in the city of Wuhan (Hubei, China).[412][413][414]
Wet market is a generic word that describes any market that sells perishable goods that was used as a bureaucratic term in Singapore. It has never been used in China, it only became commonly known/used when some journalists latched onto the term during covid because frankly, the phrase carries a lot of negative connotations with it.
Importantly, the sentence implies heavily that is the name of the market, as it is "the Huanan wet market" instead what it's name actually is Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market or 武汉华南海鲜批发市场 in the native language.
If you're going to label that market as a wet market, then all links to Costco or Whole Foods should also be with "wet market" labels. Morleyx42 (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not done*your logic...If you're going to label that market as a wet market, then all links to Costco or Whole Foods should also be with "wet market" labels, does not seem correct, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- What wikipedia rule/guideline does "this doesn't seem correct" fall under?
- Because it seems correct to me, and Wikipedia is big on accuracy. Besides, aside from the whole question of whether or not "wet market" is an appropriate label, "Wuhan Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market" is more precise and accurate.
- So I'd like this to be re-opened or whatever it's called. 173.222.1.147 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia uses established terminology as used by the best sources, not peculiar quirky wording cooked up by an editor. Bon courage (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about we be a little more WP:CIVIL and look at the Wikipedia article Wet market and also Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market and decide what would fit in the sentence better? While the lead in the article for Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market does not mention "Wet market" it is referred to as a wet market in the body. The citation for the sentence in question does use the phrase "Huanan wet market", but also specifically refers to "Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market" and that seems more precise to me. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
a wiki link for "ventilation" in the prevention section
could be Air_purifier#COVID-19 for example. 173.222.1.147 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Zuckerberg's revelations
[1] (The Guardian), [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc.; there are many reliable sources about this, e.g. The Guardian. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Concerning the article, this is trivia, WP:NOTNEWS. Zefr (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Might be worth mentioning in the misinformation article, using secondary sources and not WP:NEWSPRIMARY ones e.g.[11] Seems this is just a politically strategic complaint rehashing old grievances about FB having to do some work to clean up its act. Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support, great idea. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely more relevant to COVID-19 misinformation, but I wonder whether it would be difficult to write accurately and neutrally on this subject. The facts appear to be:
- Zuckerberg thinks that the people in his company, operating with the same limited information as the rest of us, sometimes made decisions that now, with greater information, they would make differently. (In other shocking news, the Sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow morning.)
- The US government wanted the company to remove more posts than they actually did. (Imagine this from the POV of someone accustomed to Internet censorship in China: The government asked you to remove a post, and you didn't?!)
- The final decision about whether to remove a post was always made by the company, not the government.
- When they didn't remove all the posts the government wanted them to remove, then... um... well... nothing actually happened to them. The government employees let the Facebook employees know that the government employees disagreed with the Facebook employees decision. The company was not fined, punished, sanctioned, closed, banned, or anything else.
- Some of the posts the company and the government employees disagreed about were humor or satire posts. I imagine that any adult can understand that a joke post can be misunderstood.
- I suspect that what's wanted by people promoting these stories is:
- Bombshell news! Zuckerberg sometimes felt pressured 😱 when government officials (doing their best to keep people alive during a period of substantial uncertainty) said they wanted his company to discourage the spread of harmful information by removing even more posts. Poor little billionaire with his temporary uncomfortable feelings! Poor little employees who sometimes had trouble telling the difference between a joke and a serious post! Poor little users who sometimes (but not usually) had their posts incorrectly removed! Poor little liars and gullible people who sometimes (but not always) had their incorrect posts removed! Poor little malicious actors who didn't get to spread as much anti-Asian hatred as they wanted to! Poor little stupid people, who didn't get encouraged often enough to try injecting bleach to cure COVID-19 infections, and thus didn't get Darwinned out of existence!
- I really think we are at risk of making a mountain out of this molehill. At a Six Sigma level, which is patently unreasonable, they would only make a bad decision 0.00034% of the time – about 1 in 300,000 posts. Given their volume, that means that mistakes would happen every day, all day long.
- I suspect that this is something that will be easier to address in a couple of years, when we have serious scholarly sources available. What we've got right now looks more like quick reactions to a self-serving politically minded press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely more relevant to COVID-19 misinformation, but I wonder whether it would be difficult to write accurately and neutrally on this subject. The facts appear to be:
- Support, great idea. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Might be worth mentioning in the misinformation article, using secondary sources and not WP:NEWSPRIMARY ones e.g.[11] Seems this is just a politically strategic complaint rehashing old grievances about FB having to do some work to clean up its act. Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)