Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:53, 19 May 2020

Template:COVID19 sanctions

Want to add new information about COVID-19? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) Coronavirus disease 2019 (the disease caused by the virus) Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in January 2025 One of the country-specific articles on the pandemic Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic ... or dozens of other places, as listed in {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}}. Thanks!

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. General Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance. Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on the Case Count Task Force common errors page. (April 2020, April 2020) For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020) "Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020) Page title COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021). SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020) Map There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray   for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020) There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020) For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020) To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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.

Section sizes Section size for COVID-19 pandemic (84 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 10,299 10,299 Terminology 183 9,270 Pandemic 1,350 1,350 Virus names 7,737 7,737 Epidemiology 1,143 39,731 Background 8,401 8,401 Cases 9,255 9,899 Test positivity rate 644 644 Deaths 11,672 20,288 Infection fatality ratio (IFR) 6,977 6,977 Case fatality ratio (CFR) 1,639 1,639 Disease 33 38,560 Variants 2,832 2,832 Signs and symptoms 3,793 3,793 Transmission 2,604 2,604 Cause 2,010 2,010 Diagnosis 3,773 3,773 Prevention 2,559 8,785 Vaccines 6,226 6,226 Treatment 9,937 9,937 Prognosis 4,793 4,793 Strategies 4,602 18,588 Containment 1,927 1,927 Mitigation 908 5,299 Non-pharmaceutical interventions 791 791 Other measures 1,007 1,007 Contact tracing 2,593 2,593 Health care 2,793 5,777 Improvised manufacturing 2,984 2,984 Herd immunity 983 983 History 133 34,885 2019 4,430 4,430 2020 9,588 9,588 2021 6,343 6,343 2022 8,235 8,235 2023 6,156 6,156 Responses 3,372 72,353 Asia 15,083 15,083 Europe 15,723 15,723 North America 7,430 7,430 South America 6,273 6,273 Africa 7,177 7,177 Oceania 9,322 9,322 Antarctica 2,698 2,698 United Nations 3,856 3,856 WHO 1,419 1,419 Restrictions 1,955 8,011 Travel restrictions 3,801 3,801 Repatriation of foreign citizens 2,255 2,255 Impact 106 80,894 Economics 4,887 9,493 Supply shortages 4,606 4,606 Arts and cultural heritage 2,091 2,091 Politics 1,638 25,104 Brazil 6,057 6,057 China 2,546 2,546 Italy 2,774 2,774 United States 5,501 5,501 Other countries 6,588 6,588 Food systems 2,358 2,358 Education 2,359 2,359 Health 10,869 10,869 Environment 7,124 7,124 Discrimination and prejudice 6,995 6,995 Lifestyle changes 7,406 7,406 Historiography 3,302 3,302 Religion 3,687 3,687 Information dissemination 2,420 3,974 Misinformation 1,554 1,554 Culture and society 5,646 5,646 Transition to later phases 6,433 6,433 Long-term effects 24 5,492 Economic 2,046 2,046 Travel 1,195 1,195 Health 435 435 Immunisations 1,792 1,792 See also 687 687 Notes 138 138 References 32,300 32,300 Further reading 4,226 4,226 External links 34 5,457 Health agencies 1,369 1,369 Data and graphs 1,045 1,045 Medical journals 3,009 3,009 Total 376,944 376,944

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Pulmonology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

Template:Vital article This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Omer Benjakob (February 9, 2020). "On Misplaced Pages, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation". Wired. Retrieved February 9, 2020. While a short and generic Misplaced Pages page on "coronavirus" had existed since 2013, the article about the "2019–20 coronavirus outbreak" was created on January 5, 2020. Stephen Harrison (March 19, 2020). "The Coronavirus Is Stress-Testing Misplaced Pages's Policies". Slate. Retrieved March 19, 2020. At press time, more than 2,100 editors have contributed to the pandemic's main Misplaced Pages article. Laurence Dodds (April 3, 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages is winning against the coronavirus 'infodemic'". Retrieved April 6, 2020. Against all odds, Misplaced Pages's eccentric volunteer editors are holding back the tide of coronavirus misinformation Omer Benjakob (April 8, 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Is Immune to Coronavirus". Retrieved April 8, 2020. Mikael Thalen (March 25, 2020). "Meet the Misplaced Pages editors fighting to keep coronavirus pages accurate". Retrieved April 8, 2020. Those pages include the Misplaced Pages article for the virus itself, known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, the disease it causes, COVID-19, and the ongoing global pandemic the coronavirus has caused. Material from 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Timeline of the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak (talk | history) on 23 January 2020 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak by country and territory (talk | history) on 26 January 2020 Template:Copied multi This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, Consensus to not move, 23 March 2020 (permalink) Proposal: Move moratorium, 30-day moratorium, 26 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → COVID-19 pandemic, Moved, 4 May 2020 (permalink) Older discussions: RM, 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, Moved, 16 January 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak, No consensus, 2 February 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak, Speedy close, 9 February 2020, (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak, Speedy close, 11 February 2020, (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → COVID-19 outbreak, Speedy close, no viable consensus and without prejudice, 11 February 2020, (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019-20 coronavirus epidemic, Speedy closed. Too soon and snowing., 13 February 2020, (permalink) MRV, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → COVID-19 outbreak, Endorsed, 13 February 2020, (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, Moved, 18 February 2020, (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Coronavirus disease outbreak, Speedy close without prejudice to renomination, 3 March 2020, (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, Moved, 11 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Coronavirus pandemic, Closed, 15 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → 2019-2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Closed, 15 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → Wuhan Chinese Coronavirus Pandemic, Closed, 15 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019-20 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China, Closed, 15 March 2020 (Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic/Archive 1#Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → novel-coronavirus-2019 outbreak, Closed, 15 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → 2019-2020 2019 nCoV coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, Closed, 15 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak → Coronavirus outbreak, Closed, 15 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → 2019–20 coronavirus disease pandemic, Closed, 15 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → 2019-20 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, Closed, 15 March 2020 (permalink) RM, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → 2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic, Not moved per WP:SNOW, 19 March 2020 (permalink) This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marianneostos (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LawrenceH2020, Egarn005, Taha.A13. News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 20, 2020, January 28, 2020, January 31, 2020, February 4, 2020, March 11, 2020, and March 16, 2020.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages; we're glad you're here! Please feel free to join discussions on this talk page, but be aware that, due to the volume of edits at this page, it is one of the more difficult places to jump in for newcomers. You may find it easier to edit a different COVID-19-related article (such as the one for your home country) or to help out with other tasks on Misplaced Pages.

Highlighted open discussions

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

• v
• e

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)

Include subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)

07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)

Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease. (April 2020)

Notes

1. Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.
2. An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).

010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)

011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)

015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)

016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)

017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)

019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. (June 2024)

Requested move 26 April 2020

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 04:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC).

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: Move to COVID-19 pandemic. While there is, of course, some disagreement, the strength – to say nothing of the number (which by my count exceed those against it by 2:1) – of the arguments in favor of this name outdo those against it. Redirects from "coronavirus"-related titles will still exist. As agreed in the sidebar, other related titles using the "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" nomenclature should be moved in due time, likely with the assistance of a bot. -- tariqabjotu 01:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic → COVID-19 pandemic – (The 30 day moratorium on page move discussion has now expired. It was well respected, but please do not use the notion that the name has been unchallenged for 30 days as justification for its retention.)

1. An epidemic should be named for the disease, not the virus, and even less so for the large group of which the responsible virus is but one member.
2. Using COVID-19 rather than coronavirus 2019 seems to be in keeping with item 2 of the COVID-19 project's consensuses, replicated at the top of this talk page. It has the additional benefit of not repeating so obviously the 2019 if the years are to be included as a prefix.
3. I propose dropping the years prefix:

(a) because there will be disagreement as to whether it is accurate to talk of pandemic situation in 2019;

(b) because it is not absolutely clear that the pandemic will finish before 2020 does; and

(c) in the hope that whatever may happen with this virus in the future, it does not bring about a second full blown pandemic, and that such disambiguation would be redundant.

I would actually prefer to see three separate votes on these three issues (name for virus or disease/full or abbreviated name/with or without year(s) prefix), but RM just doesn't work that way, and parallel RfCs do not seem to be a good way to resolve issues in Misplaced Pages, but if there is a clear preference for that course of action, I would happily withdraw my RM. Kevin McE (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RM sidebar (comments, extended discussion)

We will need to move (rename) other articles for consistency

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.

If we decide to make the move (rename the article), we should do the same for all the other articles that have "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" in their titles.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:18, 26 April 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.

• I've started a thread about the implementation of all the other moves at the COVID-19 WikiProject talk page. Feel free to contribute there. {{u|Sdkb}}  04:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The Question of Origin

Given the volume of damning, albeit circumstantial evidence , a sentence or two about the possibility that the virus was accidentally leaked from a lab should be added to the origin section. Note that this is not a suggestion that the case be made for a bio-engingeering or bio-weapons origin. That seems highly implausible and is well suited for the misinformation page. Rather, an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is in perfect concordance with the present scientific consensus of a natural origin for the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1540:4BD9:404C:895E:F375:6408 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note: the same discussion is happening over at SARS-COV-2 Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely no conspiracy theories will be added to this article as though they are plausible. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Me and Lenny ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) agree with Muboshgu:  No conspiracy theories allowed.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if the talk page isn't appropriate for this discussion (I'm new to the Misplaced Pages talk pages - happy to exchange emails and have the discussion elsewhere), but how is this origin more implausible/more of a conspiracy theory than the origin related to the wet market that is implied in the current iteration of the article? I see how any number of other conspiracy theories should be banned, including intentional leakage and bio weapons, but the amount of circumstantial evidence related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology certainly warrants a second look. If this is an issue of the reach of my conjecture exceeding the grasp of the available evidence, I totally understand. There have to be standards. But to simply dismiss this as a conspiracy theory like all of the other garbage out there strikes me as a bit hasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.121.202 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages 98.15.121.202. I agree that we (me, you, and those other editors too) can dismiss arguments hastily without fully considering a claim's merits. At the same time, understanding the context is important. Wikipedians very frequently encounter spam, vandalism, hacking, lying, paid editing to boost a company's web presence, and a slew of conspiracy theories yearning for the legitimacy a Misplaced Pages article bestows on the movement. ¶ Given that reality, and because it is standard practice, the burden of persuasion falls on the editor(s) who want to add new information. If you wish to take on the challenge, I suspect many editors will seriously consider your argument, since you write well, display courtesy and tact, and come across as sincere. ¶ In terms of classical rhetorical strategies, you can enhance your ethos by learning Misplaced Pages's ways and wherefores. ¶ So ... Why not create an account and stay awhile? Misplaced Pages can use as many quality members as possible! Here are some pages that you might find helpful: *The five pillars of Misplaced Pages, *How to edit a page, *Help pages, *Tutorial, *How to write a great article, *Manual of Style. BONUS TIP! → sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions. All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 11:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made an account now and I'll look at the sources you provided. --Azahariev (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, let's note the section about accidental virus leakage on the COVID Misinformation page . Note specifically the final sentence: "Days later, multiple media outlets confirmed that U.S. intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that the virus started in the WIV" as of this writing (April 26, 9:22PM Eastern Standard Time). NBC, CNN, CBS, and the WSJ are all reporting this. I don't think it's reasonable to treat this merely as a conspiracy theory at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.121.202 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree conspiracy theories belong on that other page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Coronavirus,COVID-19
2. https://project-evidence.github.io/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Misinformation_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Accidental_leakage

I'm not especially educated on the precise details, but I think that when a hypothesis is being taken seriously by at least one major national government it is somewhat ridiculous to categorically call it "misinformation". Claims of it being intentionally released as a bioweapon are obviously flawed and can safely be filed under the heading of "conspiracy theory", but when nobody's willing to rule out an accidental leak it frankly seems premature to dismiss it. I personally don't think it's likely, but I don't see the conclusive weight of evidence that would be needed to categorically mark it false - even the section on it in the "misinformation" article is really short on anyone categorically ruling it out, which would seem to be an RS issue in itself (i.e. we have no RS cited that it is misinformation). Magic9mushroom (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And I don't know what kind of Misplaced Pages policies and policy exceptions could apply here, but it seems to me that the fact that the theory has been taken seriously enough to enter various media outlets is indicative of its worth being mentioned, if only to be subsequently dismissed as poorly founded and unconfirmed in the sentence directly following it. To some extent, we have a duty to our readers to show them what they may have heard about elsewhere from what seems like legitimate sources, even if that information is erroneous, so that they understand that yes, we are aware of this, and no, it probably isn't true, and here's why, so long as we provide links to those sources. Otherwise readers will be left wondering, "I guess none of the editors of Misplaced Pages has heard about this thing yet," which wouldn't be at all true. We and the reading public are better off and better informed if we say we know about it and it is bunk. But that attitude should probably only apply if the conspiracy theory has already had a significant independent public airing first (which this one seems to have had). A loose necktie (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Very well put, A loose necktie. I support inclusion in a single sentence, followed inmediately by a caveat of its speculative nature at this point.--Forich (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a new strain of coronavirus, that's it. I really don't see why we'd need to involve a science lab. If it was super deadly or super infectious at least, we'd have somewhat of a base for a conspiracy. Iluvalar (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that hypotheses of deliberate release (i.e. conspiracy) are obviously flawed and definitely belong under the heading of "conspiracy theory". Accidental release is what's being taken relatively seriously as a possibility, and what I think WP is dismissing more categorically than is warranted (saying that it's speculative is entirely warranted, but outright dumping it under "misinformation" - i.e., confirmed wrong/implausible - is not). I support Forich's suggestion. Magic9mushroom (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What source is being proposed to be used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As the accidental leakage theory is proposed by a serious source, i.e. the Washington Post's columnist Josh Rogin on April the 14th, and is followed up by multiple confirmations that U.S. intelligence officials are investigating the possibility, I think it would be appropriate to include one or two sentences here. If we would stamp it as misinformation beforehand, our neutrality would be at stake.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we try these, in order of most reputable to less: 1) Nature; 2) The Lancet; 3) BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press; 3) Peer-reviewed journals; 4) Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, CNN, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, Forbes, Fox News, The Guardian, The New York Times, Newsweek, Snopes, Time, Vox, The Washington Post and Wired. --Forich (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nature, Lancet, Reuters, Interfax, AFP, UPI, and AP have not covered the story yet (as ar as I know). That leaves us with BBC News, as the most reputable source for this.--Forich (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's Reuters covering the story as well. Certainly nothing conclusive, but it seems fair to include the fact that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is being investigated as a possible source. Azahariev (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory refuted by multiple authoritative sources in the cited Vox article. There's no "there" there. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

From your citation: "The scientists I did speak to all acknowledge it’s not possible to definitively rule out the lab-escape theory." That a plausible explanation is not the most probable one is no basis for calling it "refuted" or "misinformation". I'm not asking for us to say outright that it came via WIV - that would be even more inappropriate than the current state of affairs. I'm asking for it to not be literally labelled false while it's still under serious consideration.

I'll say what we're all thinking: the accusation is political dynamite related to one of the world's great powers, and some of the people making it are more interested in that dynamite than in the truth. That doesn't mean it's wrong. I think it probably is, but we don't have (and may never have) solid evidence one way or the other and until we do it shouldn't be in the category of "misinformation" - that's specifically outright lies. Magic9mushroom (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course scientists will "acknowledge it’s not possible to definitively rule out the lab-escape theory:" they're scientists and thinking in terms of probabilities. Scientists' love of hedging and cautious language has been used by others, notably climate science deniers, to produce controversy where there is none. Many scientists calling the lab escape theory "highly unlikely" means "BS" in plain English. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The point about not being able to "definitively rule out" the conspiracy theory is meaningless. This is specifically addressed in the article I linked to: “The trouble with hypotheses is that they are not disprovable. You cannot prove a negative,” said Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and a disease ecologist who has studied emerging infectious diseases with colleagues in China. Yet he also sees the lab-escape theory as “ironic and preposterous.” The issue isn't whether it can be "definitively" rule out, the issue is whether there is any good reason whatsoever to believe it. The answer is definitively "no." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: agreed. -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

From the Vox Article: "Newsweek reported April 27 that in March the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report that “reveals that U.S. intelligence revised its January assessment in which it ‘judged that the outbreak probably occurred naturally’ to now include the possibility that the new coronavirus emerged ‘accidentally’ due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices’ in the central Chinese city of Wuhan.”" and "I asked Jim LeDuc, head of the Galveston National Laboratory, a level-4 biosafety lab in Texas, for his thoughts on Yuan’s statement. “I like to think that we can take Zhiming Yuan at his word, but he works in a very different culture with pressures we may not fully appreciate,” he said. In other words, we don’t know what kind of pressures he might be under from his government to make such a statement." ... These are the kind of issues that folks who want this to be merely mentioned are concerned about. Is this not enough evidence to include two sentences? Something like "Western intelligence agencies are looking at the WIV as a potential origin of the virus, as rumors and concerns about lab safety surface, indicating a possibility that the naturally occurring virus accidentally originated there before spreading to other areas in Wuhan including the wet market. At this time, this origin source is viewed as unlikely by most in the scientific community." Azahariev (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Scientific consensus strongly favors natural, zoonotic origin. In the mean time, as during the 1918 flu pandemic, countries all over the world are blaming their enemies for creating the virus or spreading panic. We should keep politicization out of this section. I have done so with this edit , restoring longstanding text and consensus for the opening epidemiology paragraph. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, you are not understanding: the regular procedure after a once-in-a-millenium-pandemic like this is for the world to conduct an independent investigation on key details: its origin, who was patient-zero, and what possible measures we can do to prevent new outbreaks. As far as I know, the WHO has not done that research, and instead they have fully endorsed China's version as the only truth. Think about it, if this had happened in North Korea, and the regimen's scientists were diverting an accidental leak, the rest of the world would be asking to take a look into it with our own specialists. Or, on the other hand, if this had happened in a free country like the United States or Denmark, the official story would be trusted by the international community and the case could be closed, with all speculation being dismissed.I am sure we can agree that China lies in a middle point between those tow extremes--Forich (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"once-in-a-millenium-pandemic" ? Are you saying that during the medieval period people over 80yo were surviving easily to a new strain of coronavirus ? Iluvalar (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well, and I'm not going to get involved in political speculation. The scientific evidence has thus far been unambiguous, e.g.

Nature: Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

Cell Press: ...SARS-CoV-2 undoubtedly has a zoonotic origin...

National Science Review: ...Our results suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection...

CSIRO: ...SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV...

IJBS: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 follows the general theme by which SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV arose. Whereas a bat beta-CoV sharing 95% nucleotide homology with SARS-CoV has been found, there also exists a bat-CoV sharing 96% nucleotide homology with SARS-CoV-2. Whereas civets and other animals in the markets have been found to harbour viruses identical to SARS-CoV, immediate intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2 have not been identified. Pangolin beta-CoVs strikingly homologous to SARS-CoV-2 have been found, indicating that pangolins might serve as one of intermediate hosts or pangolin betaCoVs could contribute gene fragments to the final version of SARS-CoV-2. Although questions remain, there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made either deliberately or accidentally.

Zoological Research: ...there are several speculations or conspiracy theories that HCoV-19 was artificially generated in the laboratory (Andersen et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020)... Based on the information and knowledge gained from past SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV epidemics, combined with the successful detection and isolation of SARS-like coronaviruses (Bat-CoVRaTG13) in bats (R. affinis) with over 95% similarity to HCoV-19, it can be postulated with a degree of confidence that this novel coronavirus likely also originated from bats (Zhou et al., 2020a).

From a scientific perspective this is described as a conspiracy theory and should have no place in this article. -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar, the comparison with the black plague is irrelevant. My point holds even if we diminish Covid's severity to a "once-in-a-decade" pandemic. I hope that we agree that, given China's Comunist Party censuring behavior, it is our duty as wikipedians to discuss whether to move them down in our WP:RS scale of reliability.--Forich (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, this is a productive discussion, I like that you have moved over the terrain of providing sources. You seem open to discussing different views if backed by solid evidence stated in reliable sources. I am willing to engage and see whether we can reach a middle ground. Please provide a quote from any reliable source labeling the accidental leakage hypothesis as "conspiracy" or "fringe" or "out of the realms of possibility" that does not rely on any "Occam razor" sophisms.--Forich (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I quoted above? -Darouet (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I looked at the sources you quoted. I don't see why the "bio-engineered and weaponized" conspiracy theory has to be conflated with questioning whether a naturally occurring virus that mutated due to natural selection may have been studied in a lab and was accidentally released. The former theory is ruled out by your sources and seems prima facie highly implausible. The latter theory is not addressed by your sources and seems plausible. Azahariev (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You did not read the sources: they specifically state that it is natural, and was not artificially created.

In other news, it's been reported today that Trump has asked his intelligence agencies to find some way of showing that China created the virus. This request finds no support in scientific literature but I assume the pressure being placed by his administration will have some impact non-MEDRS, and on what people begin arguing here. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, Accusing me of not reading the sources when I'm attempting to address them directly doesn't seem like you are assuming good faith on my part. Please be a little more charitable, in keeping with Misplaced Pages Etiquette. I am not making the claim that it's plausible that this virus was artificially created. As I stated in my previous comment, the question of whether a naturally occurring virus was accidentally leaked from a lab is the more plausible hypothesis in this line of reasoning. The sources you cited, as I understand them, don't address this. Azahariev (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Azahariev: thanks and my apologies, I misunderstood your comment. For what you're saying to be true, the WIV would have had to have located this highly virulent and deadly SARS-CoV-2 strain in Nature sometime in 2019, brought it to the lab, and lost it back into nature once more at the end of the year. I think scientists haven't considered that hypothesis because it's convoluted and preposterous enough to be outside the realm of reasonable investigation. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet: Why would a theory of accidental release be “convoluted and preposterous enough to be outside the realm of reasonable investigation”? It happened twice in Beijing with SARS, not to mention all the other times it has happened. Swood100 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: all of those very dangerous lab leakages occurred with viruses that evolved in nature, caused epidemics, and were then stored in human laboratories for study. None of those viruses were created in laboratories: they all evolved naturally, which is what viruses have been doing for billions of years, long before you were born. It's what viruses will continue to do for billions of years into the future, long after you're gone. We know from SARS-CoV-2 genomics that this strain evolved quite recently. We also know from more general studies of coronaviruses that scientists have sampled only a tiny fraction of the coronavirus diversity that's present in nature. It would be truly incredible for scientists to have miraculously found and sampled this particle coronavirus strain in nature just after it evolved, but before it caused a pandemic. In the scenario being proposed by editors above who are clearly not biologists, SARS-CoV-2 was both present in nature in southeast China in October 2019, and was sampled and sitting in a freezer in a lab at the WIV at the same time. According to this scenario, the SARS-CoV-2 strain that's in nature for some reason doesn't infect any of the 350 million pigs, 1.3 billion people, or 5.5 billion chickens living in the country. But, one of a dozen researchers at the WIV makes a mistake, releases the same strain, and now, miraculously, it starts to infect people? -Darouet (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: It is well-documented that researchers from these labs visit obscure caves in order to capture bats in order to find ones that are infected with unknown viruses. They take the bats back to the lab in order to study the viruses. They claim to have discovered over a thousand new viruses in the last ten years or so. We know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) posted a job opening on December 24, 2019, asking for scientists to come research the relationship between the coronavirus and bats, in which they said “long-term research on the pathogenic biology of bats carrying important viruses has confirmed the origin of bats of major new human and livestock infectious diseases such as SARS and SADS, and a large number of new bat and rodent new viruses have been discovered and identified.”

If they had left the bats in the obscure caves it is unlikely that they would have come into contact with any people. However, by capturing the bats they set in motion a sequence of possibilities for the virus to jump to humans. In the first place unsafe practices have been observed in a video of the bat capture procedure. Once the bats are taken to the lab and the viruses are extracted then they are just like any other pathogen that can be accidentally released. Is it hard to understand that such a virus poses little risk to humans if left in bat caves but substantially more risk if it is extracted from the cave and transported to a metropolitan area with a population of 11 million?

We know that a Chinese researcher published a research paper in which he concluded that “the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan,” and gave his reasons for thinking so. Later he retracted the paper because “it was not supported by direct proofs,” but he obviously didn’t find it incredible that the virus might have escaped from the lab and would no doubt have liked to see whatever evidence was available from the WIV.

We don’t know that this virus was found and sampled just after it evolved. It may have been circulating among the bats for a long time. Could you clarify exactly what part of this scenario you find incredible? Swood100 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: first, you didn't respond to my point that all the lab outbreak examples you linked above are cases where a virus evolved in nature, infected humans and/or their domesticated animals, and were then studied in labs that, from time to time, had a leak. None of those cases involved a virus held in a lab that had never caused an outbreak, but then left the lab and did so. All evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 is just like all those other viruses and associated epidemics.

Second, there are some really fundamental aspects of viral evolution and transmission that you are misunderstanding, and this misunderstanding follows directly from your confusion above regarding other viruses and past outbreaks. Not understanding that humans are surrounded by viruses constantly, that those viruses are constantly evolving, that viruses jump from species to species repeatedly, that they jump into humans too and have done so often in the past, you appear amazed when it happens yet one more time, and invoke human error or malign human agency. Those bats are not in "obscure caves". In coastal Guangdong, China's most populous province with 113 million people and a higher population density than any US state, samples from hundreds of bats living in caves just a few kilometers from towns or villages have shown many of coronavirus lineages in many different bat species . 90% of villagers raise animals in their homes, 10% report seeing bats fly near their homes, and about 3% test positive for prior infection by random coronaviruses . Bats surround us — I'm surprised if you live somewhere without them — and it's well known that they carry diseases that can spill over into humans particularly where bat, human, and domesticated animal populations are high, like SE Asia . There's a reason why scientific papers have been warning about another outbreak coming for decades. You should try to learn something from these publications rather than blaming the outbreak on the scientists who've been warning you for years about this inevitability. -Darouet (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: None of those cases involved a virus held in a lab that had never caused an outbreak, but then left the lab and did so.

I’m sorry, but if a virus is being held in a lab how are the chances of its accidental release affected by whether or not it has ever before infected humans?

you appear amazed when it happens yet one more time, and invoke human error or malign human agency.

No, my amazement or lack thereof is irrelevant. My only point is that if American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, that should be reported by Misplaced Pages.

Those bats are not in "obscure caves". In coastal Guangdong, China's most populous province with 113 million people and a higher population density than any US state, samples from hundreds of bats living in caves just a few kilometers from towns or villages have shown many of coronavirus lineages in many different bat species .

The reference you supplied identified a particular cave containing the particular bats they are interested in — those related to SARS:

"Furthermore, the building blocks for SARS-CoV were identified from eleven different ARSr-CoV viral strains in a five-year surveillance program in a cave inhabited by multiple species of horseshoe bats in Yunnan Province, China ."

This is a reference to a study also described in this article as follows:

"The cave, whose exact location is being kept secret, is inhabited by wild bats that have been found to carry a “rich gene pool of SARS-related coronaviruses,” said Peter Daszak, the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S. nonprofit organization that monitors wildlife diseases that could pose a pandemic risk."

So it’s true that bats are everywhere and that they are frequently infected with coronaviruses. But the researchers are not interested in just every coronavirus, but in particular ones that are SARS-related, and these are located in a specific cave, the location of which is kept secret. That sounds like the definition of an “obscure cave.” If they had left the bats in those caves it is far less likely that the viruses they contain would have come into contact with any people. We are not dealing here with the run-of-the-mill bats that live everywhere. Those bats aren’t infected with SARS-related strains.

and about 3% test positive for prior infection by random coronaviruses

Random coronaviruses are not a particularly great threat. A few strains of the common cold consist of random coronaviruses. If they spill over then nobody notices. Trying to capture and work with SARS-related coronaviruses, on the other hand is a high-risk activity. — Swood100 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Swood100: The misunderstandings between us are too great to be resolved by discussion here. I urge you to read some of the papers I cited linked above. In particular, despite our differences of opinion, I think you will find this one very interesting: . Best, -Darouet (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Per my comment on the same discussion at SARS-CoV-2: Misplaced Pages should not be promogulating politically motivated conspiracy theories about the virus. Saying that natural selection is unable of creating such an effective virus and therefore it must have been lab created is idiotic and obviously false considering the many pandemics throughout history have happened with no genomic editing technology whatsoever, and the crude nature of current genomic editing technology. The nature of this argument feels similar to that of Ancient astronauts, where of course "primitive" indigenous people can't have created complex works of architecture therefore it must be aliens. It's the same fallacy. We now know that the US Government is pushing this conspiracy theory to cover for their own failures. (Mazzetti, Mark; Barnes, Julian E.; Wong, Edward; Goldman, Adam (2020-04-30). "Trump Officials Are Said to Press Spies to Link Virus and Wuhan Labs". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-30.) Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thank you. -Darouet (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, yes I read the sources you quoted above. In my opinion they do not address directly the accidental-leakage hypothesis, provided that we consider it to state that a natural virus that got in the lab (somehow) and accidentally leaked out of it. The middle ground that I hope we can reach looks like this:

"The virus is natural, and some of the earliest cases detected in December 2019 happened to be in Wuhan, China. Patient-zero, that is, the first person to become infected from an animal, has not been discovered yet. However, it is conjectured that a few places in Wuhan may have had favorable conditions for the virus to make the jump to patient-zero. Of these, the most discussed in the cientific community is the Seafood market in Huanan. Another plausible place for the original jump to happen may be the Wuhan Institute of Virology, although experts cited by BBC and Reuters, disregard it judging that it is 'highly unlikely', purely speculative, and unfounded in any cientific evidence." --Forich (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the truth of those final ten words, the whole final sentence should not be used. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that we can't accurately call it "misinformation" until it's disproven ("misinformation" is an extremely strong term), and the hypothesis itself has been bandied about enough to be notable in its own right, where do you suggest it be placed? I suppose one solution is to rename the "misinformation" article to something less prejudicial and creating a "misinformation" heading in said article for the known false stuff; what do others think of that? Magic9mushroom (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, thats a respectable opinion. If other editors feel the same way we can opt to omit any reference to the hypothesis, at least in this article. Per the suggestion of Magic9mushroom, maybe the appropiate place to mention the hypothesis is in the "misinformation" entry, after relabeling the whole entry or a section of it to a less prejudicial name. My opinion is that the average reader would never get to that page, so that's why I'm discussing to give it a brief mention here at the pandemic entry.--Forich (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, there is a recent update on the coverage of the story, by the Washington Post. It provides no new evidence, but I find it much more benevolent to the hypothesis. Please watch it and discuss here.--Forich (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation is indeed a strong word, and in this case wholly appropriate. -Darouet (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are some articles about this subject, if anybody is interested:

https://news.yahoo.com/suspected-sars-virus-and-flu-found-in-luggage-fbi-report-describes-chinas-biosecurity-risk-144526820.html

https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/coronavirus/did-coronavirus-leak-from-a-research-lab-in-wuhan-startling-new-theory-is-no-longer-being-discounted-amid-claims-staff-got-infected-after-being-sprayed-with-blood/ar-BB12cexD?li=BBqrVLO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fopinions%2fglobal-opinions%2fhow-did-covid-19-begin-its-initial-origin-story-is-shaky%2f2020%2f04%2f02%2f1475d488-7521-11ea-87da-77a8136c1a6d_story.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-china-compete-us-sources

David A (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What were the odds that the virus get first detected near one of the only super advanced coronavirus lab in the world able to detect it ? hmmmm. Those Chinese people are suspicious and evil. They must be hidding the WP:TRUTH. If only i could decipher the puzzle. But why does the virus was detected near a lab that CAN ! What was the odds !! Wake-up sheeples they are controlling us. Iluvalar (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mind your tone please. I am just suspicious given the tyrannical Chinese government's human rights track record. David A (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Iluvalar . This is uncalled for. Please address the sources and provide good faith counterarguments and sources, or abstain from the discussion. It's hard enough as it is to figure out a middle ground on these issues without this turning into a name-calling match. Azahariev (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion at times resembles slapstick, or “who’s on first,” when the statement “the theory is that the virus accidentally escaped from the lab” is answered by “scientific consensus is that the virus is of natural origin.” This is a non sequitur. It is not in doubt that the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was studying bat viruses. They posted a job opening on November 18, 2019, “asking for scientists to come research the relationship between the coronavirus and bats.” So what is being investigated is whether they accidentally released one of these viruses. I don’t think that anybody here is arguing the non-natural origin theory, so could we just have a moratorium on the refutation of that theory?

I wish we could also have a moratorium on solemn pronouncements that Misplaced Pages is not the place for conspiracy theories. Everybody will agree with that, but it begs the question. Why is a theory that a virus was accidentally released from a lab a conspiracy theory? We know that similar viruses have been accidentally released from high security labs many times.

Incontrovertible proof is not the requirement for inclusion of a theory in a Misplaced Pages article. It is enough that the theory is given credence by serious and responsible people. Richard Ebright, a Rutgers microbiologist and biosafety expert said “The possibility that the virus entered humans through a laboratory accident cannot and should not be dismissed.” Ebright also referred to a publically-available video that he said showed CDC workers collecting bats with inadequate personal protective equipment and unsafe practices, including exposed faces and wrists and a lack of goggles or face shields. Is Ebright a conspiracy theorist? There are other serious and responsible people who, in order to find all available facts, have asked China for access to the WIV. What is the reason for refusing to report these requests?

Where is the reference to a source showing conclusively that this is a conspiracy theory or that this virus did not escape from the WIV? I have seen references to articles but I would like to be directed to the specific language in that article that demonstrates conclusively that the accidental release theory cannot be held by any serious person. Swood100 (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is used as a means to squash anything new coming to prominence that has not been first brought to public attention by one of those scientists. Centuries ago, administrators of the then-equivalent of Misplaced Pages would have hastily deleted any mention of medical treatment that did not involve bleeding or the use of leeches. Well obviously that was ridiculous. And it is equally ridiculous that the stunning coincidence of a lab which ‘researched’ viruses of the most infectious kind just happened to be located a few hundred metres away from the originating epicentre of the most infectious novel viral epidemic the world has experienced for over 100 years can not even be mentioned on the Misplaced Pages page about the epidemic without people suggesting that that fact be classified as disinformation or worse, a conspiracy theory. Are those people in the pocket of the CCP? Not to give space to the fact I have outlined in the article is tantamount to criminal disinformation. There is, you know, disinformation through deliberate omission of key information. That is what we have at the moment. Boscaswell talk 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Swood100 Well said! For some reason, the main article on the Coronavirus pandemic is completely silent on an important developing story about the origin, a story that is in complete concordance with the scientific consensus. Yet, in the section discussing origin we have this: On 13 March 2020, an unverified report from the South China Morning Post suggested a case traced back to 17 November 2019 (a 55-year-old from Hubei) may have been the first infection. (Bolding mine).

This wikipedia article is absolutely failing to live up to . From the Five Pillars page: "We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". " We are failing the public by not including information about this origin theory. Azahariev (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. WP:FRINGE says that "A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position." So far, no such source ("speculations" and "not discounting the possibility" are not "high-quality reliable sources") has been presented. A quick seach on Pubmed for "covid origin" or "covid leak" does not yield any such results. What I do find, such as this example here; fail to mention it, and instead the only origin they discuss seriously is it crossing over from animals (bats, or some others) to humans:

"Bats have been recognized as a natural reservoir and vectors of a variety of coronaviruses, and these viruses have crossed species barriers to infect humans and many different kinds of animals, including avians, rodents, and chiropters . While the origin of COVID-19 is still being investigated, COVID-19 has features typical of the Coronaviridae family and was classified in the beta-coronavirus 2b lineage."

The theory of accidental release, as far as we know, is wild speculation; and it being mentioned in news sources because the US governement mentioned it is not conclusive proof of anything else but it being mentioned by the US govt... The guideline to follow here is (as described previously), of course, to prefer topic-specific peer-reviewed publications over newspapers. The lack of mention in proper sources makes this a fringe theory and mentioning it in the article would be much more WP:UNDUE than ignoring what appear to be, so far, the ramblings of an old man who is definitively not an expert on this matter... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

What the scientific community has said is that they have been shown no evidence that the virus was released from a lab. The U.S. government has formally asked China for access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in order to examine the evidence there. Why is this request not noteworthy? Swood100 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If the scientific community has said there is no evidence (i.e. that sounds rather like a rejection of this theory), then we have no reason to include this in the main article here. The US government asking China (their main competitor) for access to a lab to verify a conspiracy theory might go in the article about that government's response to the pandemic (with care taken to ensure it is not presented as a fact or a majority opinion per WP:UNDUE) which is not here but at COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. In any case WP should not be spreading uncorroborated speculation - WP:MEDRS are what we should be looking at. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If the scientific community has said there is no evidence (i.e. that sounds rather like a rejection of this theory), then we have no reason to include this in the main article here.

They didn’t say that there is no evidence. They said that they have not been shown any evidence. Furthermore, saying that they have seen no evidence of X is not the same as saying that there is evidence of not-X. One can believe that something is true and yet have no evidence that it is true. Police may believe that X is the murderer but have no evidence. This leads them to look for evidence. In this case they are doing that by asking for admission to the places where they believe that the evidence might be found.

If police announce that they are looking for a certain car in connection with a murder because they believe that evidence will be found in it, that is reportable on the Misplaced Pages page dealing with the murder regardless of whether a majority of the Misplaced Pages editors on that page disagree with the police as to the likelihood of finding evidence there. The fact that the police are looking for a certain car is not uncorroborated speculation. It is a fact. — Swood100 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Have not been shown any evidence", for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to "there is no evidence as of this moment". In any case, logically, the burden of proof lies on those proposing an idea, and since there is no evidence to support Trump's theory (as widely reported by the media, who clearly say that no supporting evidence has been presented), we should not include it. And, no, actually, the example you give would probably not be reported on such a hypothetical WP page because Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and we don't provide live 24-hour coverage of the subject, unlike newspapers. (eg. ). What we do provide is relevant coverage based on high-quality topic-related sources (i.e. WP:MEDRS). As has been shown below, scholarly journals do not consider this theory seriously; and the mainstream media are widely reporting that Trump's claim is utter hoghwash, with even his own advisors and intelligence agencies contradicting him on the topic. Merely because something has been "investigated" or "not been deemed impossible" (see, again, proving a negative) does not mean we should mention it, i.e. this is literally the idiomatic teapot. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Wuhan lab-escape theory does not belong under 'misinformation' in this article . Nor is it a 'conspiracy theory' (by definition, an accident is not a conspiratorial act). Nor is it 'Trump's theory' (the fact a theory has been politicized is wholly irrelevant to its veracity). Nor is there 'no evidence' for the lab-escape theory (there is circumstantial evidence: the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is 280 metres from the Wuhan wet market; the WIV collected and studied bat coronaviruses; the bats in question live 1000 kilometres south of Wuhan; the wet market does not sell bats; from 2019, WIV performed gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, i.e. accelerated propagation in test animals to produce a 'spillover' to other species; safety procedures at WIV were lax; there is cell-phone evidence for a WIV lab shutdown in October 2019; three of the first four COVID-19 cases - including the first known case - had no documented link to the wet market; etc. etc. etc.). The current scientific consensus is that the Wuhan wet-market theory is more plausible than the lab-escape theory; however, that does not make the lab-escape theory 'misinformation' or 'hogwash'.Rosenkreutzer (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In terms of familiarity Coronavirus is more familiar than COVID. Georgeadelmoureed (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Lab accident

Is this theory covered anywhere? I only saw it in two actual newspapers. This is the closest thing I found online.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Accidental_leakage — Goszei (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not a credible theory. I haven't read the article yet. I'm waiting to read in the newspaper I subscribe to. It's still outside but I have access to NewsBank so I saw the headlines.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In the press conference version I had access on youtube, Trump specifically refused to comment on the theory. He did said the US intelligence would comment about this soon. I guess we'll be waiting for that. Iluvalar (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The WHO has dismissed Trump's theory; "The World Health Organization (WHO) has reiterated that the virus is of natural origin after the US president’s uncorroborated claims he had seen evidence it originated in a Chinese lab, AFP reports.". 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the WHO did not dismiss Trump’s theory. The issue here is not whether the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) genetically modified the bat virus and so “created” it. The only important thing is whether they released it into the general population. When Trump talks about the WIV being the “origin of the virus” he is talking about the starting point of the pandemic. Even if the virus is of natural origin (as the WHO said) the WIV would be the starting point of the pandemic if they had captured a bat that carried the virus, were currently experimenting with it, and accidentally released it. This is the critical question, and the WHO did not contradict this.

This editing dispute isn't strictly related to the details and merits of this theory, but I thought nonetheless I should point out: the WIV (along with likely all research labs in the world in this field) does not capture bats and take them to the lab to experiment on. That would be pointless and cruel. They take samples in the caves, and bring the samples back into high-security storage. There's just no credible prima facie evidence for a lab-release theory that I can see here. Acalycine (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post reported that U.S. Embassy officials visited the WIV several times and sent two official warnings back to Washington about inadequate safety at the lab. Swood100 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

For context, according to a virologist, that's the equivalent of a health inspector pointing out a minor problem in a restaurant. IMO, many of these warnings are issued in many labs - for example see here. If it was a serious breach of protocols, other U.S. agencies would presumably further pursue it and make sure it wasn't a problem, considering the U.S. has funded the WIV in the past. Here's the quote:

Critics have raised concerns over biosafety protocols at the WIV, but Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, said the criticisms are based on evidence taken out of context. The reports of biosafety issues, she said, are “like having the health inspector come to your restaurant. It could just be, ‘Oh, you need to keep your chemical showers better stocked.’ It doesn’t suggest, however, that there are tremendous problems.” And Garry reiterated that it’s incredibly unlikely SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a “bad” roll of the dice at the WIV. “All the natural exposures dwarf the possibility that it was some lab guy that was out catching bats and infected himself. That’s one little thing among millions of encounters.”

Acalycine (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For context, I think there is confusion here between WHO and Trump. Trump, I presume, is talking about a accidental lab release (natural in origin -> lab collects virus sample -> accidentally releases sample). The WHO response linked above is talking about a manufactured virus lab release (manufactured in origin -> lab accidentally/purposefully releases). For a proper response from the WHO about the 'accidental lab release' theory, this is a good source. They called it 'speculative' and implicitly called for Trump to release his evidence. Acalycine (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I fixed this a little because one must be very careful here to describe exactly what the cited sources tell. The page currently cites this article. According to it, "Based on their genomic sequencing analysis, Andersen and his collaborators concluded that the most likely origins for SARS-CoV-2 followed one of two possible scenarios. In one scenario, the virus evolved to its current pathogenic state through natural selection in a non-human host and then jumped to humans. ... In the other proposed scenario, a non-pathogenic version of the virus jumped from an animal host into humans and then evolved to its current pathogenic state within the human population..." The article is dated March 17. According to all publications including newer ones (e.g. an article in PNAS), there is no any evidence of the 2nd scenario so far, so it is probably the 1st (welcome to correct if I am mistaken). My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I fixed it simply to reflect what the source tells. But of course the leakage and even the manufacturing the virus can never be disproven by the sequence analysis. As cited here , "Although researchers will likely continue to sample and sequence coronaviruses in bats to determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2, "you can't answer this question through genomics alone," said Dr. Alex Greninger, an assistant professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and an assistant director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington Medical Center. That's because it's impossible to definitively tell whether SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab or from nature based on genetics alone. For this reason, it's really important to know which coronaviruses were being studied at WIV. "It really comes down to what was in the lab," Greninger told Live Science." My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that none of the two currently used sources support the phrase tells about "scientific consensus". They do tell about sequence analysis as the basis for the conclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:MarioGom as the originator(?) of the current wording, who noted "it is basically every WP:MEDRS dealing with the topic all the way from February to April" that speaks of a natural origin; pinging also User:Robertpedley as someone who has, IIRC, also supported the wording: would either of you like to add sources explicitly using the word "consensus" or defend it as a summary of the totality of sources? -sche (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think I helped a bit in this area. Maybe it's a bit WP:SYNTH so I would accept rewording to say something like "Genetic sequencing of the virus is consistent with a natural origin" then a couple of cites.Robertpedley (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not sequencing (i.e. determining the sequence), but sequence analysis, a method which is very useful, but has obvious limitations. For example, it can not say which specimens were in the lab in Wuhan. "Natural origin" can mean a lot of different things. That must be clarified. Anyone is welcome to include more sources and rephrase to reflect what these sources say. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Here is one of the problems with sequence analysis. This is sequence-based tree of SARS-Cov-2 related coronaviruses. The key sequences, in particular RatG13, were determined in the lab in Wuhan. However, according to Richard H. Ebright, this lab keeps a lot of sequences unpublished (RatG13 sequence was kept in secret for 7 years, as follows from public database records, see this expert discussion used in this in Science article). What exactly sequences they release will determine this evolutionary tree and conclusions from the sequence alignments. So, basically, if the lab is engaged in a cover-up (and not publishing sequences for 7 years is extremely unusual), they can decide what conclusions other people will make from the sequence analysis. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is from the Wall Street Journal:

"The Wall Street Journal and other news organizations previously have reported that American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

What objection is there to reporting that American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? — Swood100 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The WSJ is probably not a WP:MEDRS. "have reported that American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped"... is not sufficient "proof" that this is a scientifically significant alternative opinion; merely that this conspiracy theory has been mentioned by the POTUS - whose response to the situation has been widely criticized, and he is not a reliable source for much in this context... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source.

How about this from the Wall Street Journal:

“The U.S. intelligence community publicly confirmed it is trying to determine whether the coronavirus may have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, the city where the pandemic began.”

Or, if you prefer, from CNN:

“US intelligence and national security officials say the United States government is looking into the possibility that the novel coronavirus spread from a Chinese laboratory rather than a market, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter who caution it is premature to draw any conclusions.”

Or NBC:

“The U.S. intelligence community is examining whether the coronavirus that caused the global pandemic emerged accidentally from a Chinese research lab studying diseases in bats, current and former U.S. intelligence officials tell NBC News.” — Swood100 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between the WSJ (or any of the sources you mention) being a RS for general topics (which it is) and it being a sufficiently high-quality RS for medicine-related topics (which, as I said above, it probably is not). None of the sources you quote (some of them are two weeks old) say anything different than the WSJ; i.e. they all use highly uncertain language such as "trying to determine"; "looking into the possibility"; "examining whether...". In other words, they are all reporting the same thing. (And the theory, while not entirely discredited, has been many times rejected in news medias). The US intelligence community "looking into it" might be worthy of mention in the news, but WP is not a newspaper and I doubt we should include every possible theory into this article unless it has been properly verified in more scientific literature. As I said, the more proper place for this kind of wild speculation is at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That the U.S. intelligence community is investigating whether the coronavirus escaped from a lab is not a theory that has been discredited or many times rejected in the news media or wild speculation. Do you have a reference for that?

That the U.S. intelligence community is investigating whether the coronavirus escaped from a lab is not a scientific issue or a medicine-related topic, and vetting of it would not take place in scientific literature.

Here’s part of a press release from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

“As we do in all crises, the Community’s experts respond by surging resources and producing critical intelligence on issues vital to U.S. national security. The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

What’s the rationale for the position that the actions of the Intelligence Community are irrelevant to the search for the origin of the pandemic? — Swood100 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So what; they are merely "rigorously examining information" (and, in the linked press release, they do not mention the "lab accident" theory at all, only concurring with the scientific consensus that the "virus was not manmade or genetically modified"). Unless they come out with a statement saying that they have found significant evidence in favour of this, for the moment, WP:FRINGE theory, we have no good reason to include the fact that they are investigating it in the article; since the current evidence as reported in scientific journals and mainstream media is that the virus is closely related to bat and other animal coronaviruses and this is the most likely origin. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Scientific consensus" doesn't know where it came from. 55% of the first cases had links with the market - but that's the predominant hypothesis that is made primarily from analysing epidemic curves and trying to find patterns. But notably, I read somewhere that the market didn't trade bats, and bats don't live near Wuhan. Genetic analysis shows it probably had natural origin, but that's not proof. This pre-print from February made some strong suggestions about laboratory leaks, but this may have been censored from China, I'm not sure. This isn't a conspiracy theory, but a theory about an accident, and its not wild speculation. Its just scientists doing what they normally do, simply testing hypotheses, and making new ones. At the moment there is no definitive answer as to where it came from other than it was first identified in Wuhan. --Almaty (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus so far is that this coronavirus, like other coronaviruses and other viruses that have caused pandemics, has a natural origin. To borrow from Rotideypoc41352's earlier post,

We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
— Calisher, Charles; Carroll, Dennis; Colwell, Rita; Corley, Ronald B; Daszak, Peter; Drosten, Christian; et al. (19 February 2020). "Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19". The Lancet. 395 (10226). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

And quoting from sources I cited above (just a few of many that are available if you consult scientific literature):

Nature:

Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.

Cell Press:

...SARS-CoV-2 undoubtedly has a zoonotic origin...

National Science Review:

...Our results suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection...

CSIRO:

...SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, and the third zoonotic virus after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV...

IJBS:

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 follows the general theme by which SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV arose. Whereas a bat beta-CoV sharing 95% nucleotide homology with SARS-CoV has been found, there also exists a bat-CoV sharing 96% nucleotide homology with SARS-CoV-2. Whereas civets and other animals in the markets have been found to harbour viruses identical to SARS-CoV, immediate intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2 have not been identified. Pangolin beta-CoVs strikingly homologous to SARS-CoV-2 have been found, indicating that pangolins might serve as one of intermediate hosts or pangolin betaCoVs could contribute gene fragments to the final version of SARS-CoV-2. Although questions remain, there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made either deliberately or accidentally.

Zoological Research:

...there are several speculations or conspiracy theories that HCoV-19 was artificially generated in the laboratory (Andersen et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020)... Based on the information and knowledge gained from past SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV epidemics, combined with the successful detection and isolation of SARS-like coronaviruses (Bat-CoVRaTG13) in bats (R. affinis) with over 95% similarity to HCoV-19, it can be postulated with a degree of confidence that this novel coronavirus likely also originated from bats (Zhou et al., 2020a).

Scientists are basically unanimous that the origin is natural, and the evidence isn't just the RNA sequence, though of course genetics is integrally tied to every aspect of modern biology. -Darouet (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is fine to say something like "not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus" . That is what I did. It is also important to notice what the conclusion was based on, and that is sequence analysis. If there was something else, we can say "based on " . However, which of these sources tells "scientific consensus"? None of them does. This is because establishing what exactly a scientific consensus on highly controversial subjects (such as that one) is a difficult matter. Many different views were published. In the absence of very strong sources saying just that, what you did was WP:OR. This is not your (or my) business to decide what is scientific consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: I actually took that from MarioGom's comments at /Archive 31#'Natural' origins?. Intriguing pattern of people ignoring a pattern of a diverse group of people agreeing on a set of facts. Absolutely fascinating. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is apparently the publication in The Lancet . Yes, there is a consensus of authors, but about what? It tells: We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens. Yes, absolutely. There are no doubts the ancestor sequence originated from bat viruses, or as a result of recombination of RNA from viruses which came from bats, pangolins and possibly other animals. That follows from the sequence analysis. They also imply there is no evidence the virus was artificially engineered, although they did not say it exactly. Yes, there is no evidence. Does it tell the natural virus was not leaked from the lab? No. One just need to clarify what the "natural origin" means on our page. As a note of order, the publication in Lancet is a political statement, and it make false claim about "The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak" . No, some of the early specimens have been destroyed . My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You're ignoring all the other papers that report some variant of the same thing. Of course you won't understand scientific consensus if you choose to ignore it. -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - following "recent edits" added to "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Accidental leakage" may be relevant =>

, Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, claimed the SARS-CoV-2 virus "likely" came from a Wuhan virology testing laboratory, based on "circumstantial evidence". He was quoted as saying, "I have no definitive way of proving this thesis."

On April 30, 2020, the U.S. intelligence and scientific communities seemed to agree that the virus was natural—nonetheless, the White House seems to be promoting a contradictory message: "... the Covid-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified." Asked on May 2, 2020, about that conclusion, Secretary of State Pompeo said he has "no reason to disbelieve" the intelligence community, despite comments earlier in the same interview that "the best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point."

- iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Raposa, Kenneth (May 1, 2020). "Wuhan Lab As Coronavirus Source Gains Traction". Forbes. Retrieved May 2, 2020.
2. Gan, Nectar (May 4, 2020). "China pushes back against US claims that coronavirus originated from Wuhan lab". CNN News. Retrieved May 4, 2020.

If they know something, they must publicly disclose what it is, with evidence. Otherwise, everyone will think this just another nonsense coming from White House. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Should point out that there appears to be a discussion on the same subject (i.e. origin as a lab accident) higher on the talk page. In the spirit of not wasting our time maybe we should merge the two discussions (or close one of them)? In any case neither of them has convinced anyone but the editors proposing it to include this nonsense in the article... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Here is the bottom line. Not only there is no scientific consensus on the exact origin of the COVID-19, but it is simply that no one knows the exact origin of COVID-19 (bats, pangolins, another intermediate host, recombination, whatever). To determine its origin, whatever it might be, one must conduct a large-scale investigation by multiple teams, most of which should be on-site, i.e. in China, exactly as this commentary in Science tells. However, China does not allow it. Why? My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Separately from the comment below: the article you link to also says of the lab accident theory that "So far, however, the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence, and some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim, saying it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 naturally emerged elsewhere." In any case, the main topic discussed is not this conspiracy theory but the overall lack of Chinese transparency (which is nothing new) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence, and some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim, saying it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 naturally emerged elsewhere.. Yes, I am also "skeptical" and think "it is more likely...". However, there are way too many strange things around this. For example, here is excellent paper by Dr. Shi Zhengli on the evolution of coronaviruses published in 2018. Here is my question: why did not she include in the analysis the sequence of RatG13 (the closest relative of COVID-19) which their lab had determined in 2013? Why they kept it in secret until 2020? Any explanation? My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe because, when writing a paper (on any subject), you include only the most relevant information? The paper does mention sequences with up to "97.2% amino acid sequence identity." (which, I assume, is also pretty close to the RatG13 sequence). Is this criticism based upon any other source or is it just your own? In which case it is nothing more but additional, wild, uncorroborated speculation which is highly irrelevant to this discussion. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, this is sequence identity to SARS-CoV, i.e. SARS-1, not SARS-Cov-2. Here is phylogeny tree online. The entire SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) subfamily seems to be missing for beta-coronaviruses in the paper in Nature by Shi Zhengli. Regardless, keeping an important RatG13 sequence unpublished for 7 years is a red flag, given what we know now about COVID-19. If, as Richard H. Ebright claims, the Wuhan lab did not publish a lot of other sequences, that could explain why the COVID-19 subfamily includes just a few members in the phylogeny diagram online. Red flag. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

In whose opinion is it a red flag. Yours? That is once again WP:OR and we shouldn't be wasting our time on it. If the paper is on SARS-1; then it is no wonder that a sequence which is not more closely related to it than others is not mentioned, there being, of course, plenty of known coronavirus sequences (see ). I would assume that only the most relevant ones were selected for comparison. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it was not paper about SARS-1, but about alpha, beta, gamma and delta coronaviruses, with an emphasis on all beta. Yes, there many sequences now, in part because of the pandemic. There were much less in 2018, when the paper was published. And no, RatG13 sequence is (and was) extremely important for the sequence analysis as one of the highly divergent (also check the online tree). My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"And no, RatG13 sequence is (and was) extremely important" Please provide a reliable source for your otherwise WP:OR criticism; otherwise we're not making any progress. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Leave the investigative journalism and scientific research to the experts - on WP we merely report what is the current, verifiable, consensus. Most reports from mainstream news (which is also the place where this wild speculation was first reported) currently discredit the theory; ex. . What they describe as the "theory du jour" (Vox) and "a fringe theory" (Business Insider); and comment that "people pushing these sort of lines are doing everybody a disservice" (Guardian) deserves exactly no coverage nor any further waste of our time. If it goes anywhere it is in the misinformation article. The only time this should be revisited here is if and only if there is a substantial change in the matter. Until then (if that ever happens), I suggest that we add to the current consensus section that this fringe theory should not be mentioned. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Some people keeps ignoring WP:MEDRS, but medical sources are quite unanimous here. They agree the virus has a natural origin. They agree the virus is not engineered. They agree there is no evidence of HIV insertions and they agree that the original source for the HIV insertion theory was a bogus preprint paper that is now retracted. Some people also cites a paper published by Nature in 2015, ignoring the fact that Nature editors now added the following disclaimer: Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. Also, according to WP:RS, Shi Zhengli (mentioned above) is the subject of several conspiracy theories that made her the target of severe harassment, and we had to deal with these WP:BLP issues in the article about the subject. It's quite tiring to continue reading, over and over again, in every talk page all WP:FRINGE stuff that is going on at The Epoch Times, Daily Mail, Zero Hedge, Breitbart News, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you realize the the Huanan-market hypothesis had only circumstantial evidence? They reported it based on coincidences and guesses, given the places that some infected people said they had travelled recently. That was speculation, yet we reported it here in Misplaced Pages. Can the opponents of reporting the accidental-leakage hypothesis tell me why they remained so silent when wikipedians wrote about the speculation of Wuanan? It seems to me you are cherry-picking your battles.--Forich (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

1. This is not a battlefield; 2. The Hunan-market hypothesis has been published in reliable, medical journals; and the section in the article about includes proper balancing material given the unsure status of this hypothesis in light of more recent developments. Suggesting that the lab-accident origin should be given equal weight is disingenuous; despite it being parroted around by the US government even their own intelligence services and advisors disagree with them; see . As nicely put here, "Trump's Wuhan Lab Coronavirus conspiracy theory is bogus, according to, uh, everyone". 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Scientific journal articles also state that early on, we believed the market was the origin. By contrast, scientific journals describe the lab leak idea as unsupported at best, and a conspiracy theory at worst. -Darouet (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• No. According to WP:MEDRS sources (i.e. scientific studies), the virus did NOT originate at the market, contrary to the initial claims by Chinese government. As explained here,

The earliest recognised case of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was an elderly and infirm man who developed symptoms on 1 December 2019. None of his family members became infected, and the source of his virus remains unknown13. Furthermore, 14 of the first 41 cases had no contact with the seafood market 13. In another report, five of the first seven cases of COVID-19 had no link to the seafood market 14. Thus, it seems very likely that the virus was amplified in the market, but the market might not have been the site of origin nor the only source of the outbreak. A recent phylo-epidemiological study has suggested that the virus was circulating but unrecognised in November, and was imported to the seafood market from elsewhere, where it subsequently was amplified1 5.

It does not mean it was leaked from a lab. Seriously, everyone just need to ignore all misinformation planted by unnamed "intelligence sources", Chinese government, Mr. President and even some journalists unfamiliar with the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not understanding what I wrote. I didn't write that early on, scientific journal articles reported the virus came from the market. Instead, I wrote,

"journal articles also state that early on, we believed the market was the origin.

In other words, it's a matter of scientific record that the very earliest investigations — before MEDRS were even available — led researchers to investigate the market. We came to learn not long after that the market was likely a spreading event, and not the source.

So we haven't been selective in our use of MEDRS. -Darouet (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the early hypothesis that the outbreak originated at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was discarded in January/February. --MarioGom (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: that's consistent with what I wrote above. -Darouet (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources are far from being as clear cut on this as they are on the bogus Trump claim. For example, the article mentioned above by 'My very best wishes' states:

"Thus, it seems very likely that the virus was amplified in the market, but the market might not have been the site of origin nor the only source of the outbreak. A recent phylo-epidemiological study has suggested that the virus was circulating but unrecognised in November, and was imported to the seafood market from elsewhere, where it subsequently was amplified."

So, the Hunan market "might not have been the site of origin" (this could be described better in the article); but it certainly had in early important role in spreading the virus. In any case, I think we can agree that the Trump-sponsored lab leak claim deserves no mention in the article; a further, more focused discussion should be started if we wish to improve the "epidemiology" section with other, more reliable information. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As follows from quotation above and some other publications (for example), first cases in China had happen in the middle of November, but the patient zero is unknown. Unless, the Chinese authorities do know, but do not want to tell because the patient zero worked in the lab, as Fox News reported . And of course this controversy is highly notable (it affects relations between two big countries) and therefore must be included on the page. What was the "majority view" (i.e. no evidence of the leak) should also be noted. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not so sure that a so far unproven, evidence-less, possibly (likely?) politically-motivated and mostly rejected hypothesis should be presented on the main topic article. Maybe, as I said, on the pages for the the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States (where this might go somewhere in "Government response" or the like) or the misinformation page (where it already, and rightly so, is). Also, in matters of US politics (anything involving Trump is probably in that category), Fox News is seen by some as a biased source and is in any case far from being acceptable as a WP:MEDRS to support the (again, wildly speculative) statement that "the Chinese authorities do know, but do not want to tell because the patient zero worked in the lab". In any case that article is more than two weeks old, and since then there have been many (from less partisan sources) articles claiming the exact opposite... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

By the responses of many of you opposing the reporting of the lab-accident origin I can conclude that: a speculative theory that is mentioned in scientific sources deserves more weight than a speculative theory that is mentioned in news's RS. So we agree that, at the core, we CAN include a mention on a speculative theory as long as the gold standard, scientific sources, report it. I will search in scientific journals on the fields of Biosafety Health and Foreign Affairs for the mention of the lab-accident hypothesis.

If the wikipedians opposing its inclusion continue to do so, after seeing a scientific journal quote mentioning it, I guess I am gonna have to request for comment or arbitration on this matter. Its a bit hypocritical to defend unproven hypothesis as you did in January with the seafood market one; or to label the official US hypothesis as "political" while curiously omiting that the source used by MEDRS to report on the Hunan market in the first place was an official chinese news agency, which we can argue is as equally or more politically charged, under a cover-up scenario. I am gonna assume good faith of all of you (107.190.33.254, MarioGom, and Darouet), but let me politely ask you to explain again the consistency of your arguments, because it can mislead other wikipedians trying their best to understand the rules for inclusion.

The lab accident theory, have been proved by many (specially, My very best wishes) to be a simple, sensible, hypothesis mentioned in RS all over the place. I have read thorugh all the Misplaced Pages pillars and there is no rule that Nature and Lancet should be the definitive filters for information included in Misplaced Pages, as I may be interpreting from the position of some of you. I am open to read a rebuttal to this and change my mind.--Forich (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that the Hunan seafood market theory and the "lab accident" theory are not on equivalent footing. Until further analysis showed that some cases were not linked to the seafood market, it seemed like a likely origin and even sources which question this status (i.e. the article quoted by My very best wishes (henceforth, MVBW); Mackenzie and Smith (2020)) still agree that it had a role in the early spread of the disease (and most scientific journals are independent of official Chinese news agencies...), and, if the text is rewritten to correct for this, I don't think anybody will have any objection to it's inclusion. In comparison, the only comment about the "lab accident" theory we have from a MEDRS is that "So far, however, the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence, and some scientists are skeptical of the escape claim, saying it is more likely that SARS-CoV-2 naturally emerged elsewhere." (the Science news article, emphasis mine). Despite the exceedingly cautious language, as Darouet points, this amounts to a thinly veiled statement that the prevailing theory is still natural zoonotic origin and that the "lab accident" theory has not gained traction in the scientific community. In any case, that should probably be treated as a news article from a reputable scientific publication, and it again doesn't "support" the theory, merely mentions it in a very passing manner.

I am afraid that concerning your third paragraph, I have to strongly disagree. Besides some WP:OR criticism of a scientific paper and speculation (the latter, in my opinion, we should leave to the tabloids; the first of course has no place here), what has been presented in favour of the "lab accident" hypothesis is some news statement to the effect that it was being "investigated" by US intelligence agencies (possibly, following pressure by Trump) and reports that it was mentioned by Trump. In contrast, there are many reports that cast serious doubt on this, including from Trump's own advisors (as reported in the National Geographic, mentioned earlier by me) and from intelligence agencies (also mentioned earlier). To the WP:RS which were mentioned previously we can add this report from yesterday, which points out that the only specifics about the origin of the virus in a Chinese lab is a non-peer-reviewed, since retracted and disavowed two-page paper on the topic (thus likely to be, as Trump would have it, "Fake news!"). This interview with multiple scientists also presents multiple counter-arguments to the "lab accident" theory, first, on the likelihood of the origin being "natural" vs "lab":

Compare that, he says, to what we know about the labs: “If you look at the labs in Southeast Asia that have any coronaviruses in culture, there are probably two or three and they’re in high security. The Wuhan Institute of Virology does have a small number of bat coronaviruses in culture. But they’re not , SARS-CoV-2. There are probably half a dozen people that do work in those labs. So let’s compare 1 million to 7 million people a year to half a dozen people; it’s just not logical.”

On the actual similarity of the current strain to known sequences (one of the topics of OR criticism by MVBW):

Some have speculated that perhaps the new coronavirus is derived from RaTG13. Yet virologists say it’s very unlikely: A 4 percent difference in genome is actually huge in evolutionary terms. However, he said, the new coronavirus is only 80 percent similar to SARS-1 — again, a very big difference. “No one cultured viruses from those samples that were 20 percent different, i.e., no one had SARS-CoV-2 in culture. All of the hypotheses depend on them having it in culture or bats in a lab. No one’s got bats in a lab, it’s absolutely unnecessary and very difficult to do.”

There are further points but the two here seem to be the most relevant in light of the discussion we have had so far.

In light of this, and combining with the fact that the scientists from the Wuhan lab seem to be targets of multiple conspiracy theories due to this outbreak, I cannot see any equivalence between the two theories. One is, at the very least from a historiographic perspective, interesting; the other is a conspiracy theory which "is bogus, according to, uh, everyone"; and, as many conspiracy theories, it's sole logical grounding is that relies on the fact that it's difficult to prove a negative (it is much easier to simply go ahead with evidence-less, wild speculations). WP:UNDUE states that fringe theories with constitute only an extreme minority should not be mentioned. It is my opinion, based on the sources I have found so far, that this is the situation here. Of course, if you disagree with my assessment, then feel free to have an RfC on the issue, something of the like of "Should the theory about the accidental release of the virus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology be mentioned in the article?". 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to add the following (from ), it comments on the reported concerns about biosafety protocol intel and the balance of probabilities. My view is that an accidental-release theory is still WP:FRINGE on the balance of probabilities. It is extremely unlikely, and a response of "but it hasn't been disproved" is irrelevant - neither has the theory "SARS-CoV-2 came from space", yet we do not include such a theory on the page. (see for such a theory that appeared in 2003. Acalycine (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There’s a simpler, if less flashy, explanation for the emergence of a new SARS. A study, published in 2018, of four rural villages in Yunnan province located near caves containing bats known to carry coronaviruses found that 2.7 percent of those surveyed had antibodies for close relatives of SARS. Thousands, if not millions, of people are exposed to wild coronaviruses every year. Most of them aren’t dangerous, but “if you roll the dice enough times,” Goldstein said, you’ll see a bad one.

Critics have raised concerns over biosafety protocols at the WIV, but Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University, said the criticisms are based on evidence taken out of context. The reports of biosafety issues, she said, are “like having the health inspector come to your restaurant. It could just be, ‘Oh, you need to keep your chemical showers better stocked.’ It doesn’t suggest, however, that there are tremendous problems.” And Garry reiterated that it’s incredibly unlikely SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a “bad” roll of the dice at the WIV. “All the natural exposures dwarf the possibility that it was some lab guy that was out catching bats and infected himself. That’s one little thing among millions of encounters.”

It’s impossible to totally rule out a lab accident, Rasmussen said, but she worries that unilateral, politically charged investigations will permanently damage international scientific collaboration.

107.190.33.254, thanks for your reponse. I respect that you considered the Huanan Market hypothesis "likely" despite being based on circumstantial evidence. Yes, Nature mentioned it and "validated it", but they did not went to the market and took samples, they just read some news about it and judged (subjectively) the circumstantial evidence. Note that subjetive assesement by Nature's and Lancet's virologist on the Huanan market "evidence" is out of their field of expertise. I do not have a problem with MEDRS validating speculations, if they are the best evidence available at a particular moment. So on this point we agree.

On to your second point, that the lab origin hypothesis has only received tangential mention in the Science news article, I have to disagree. There is a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that does mention the hypothesis, look for it in p. 68. The paper is in spanish but I can provide a translation if you want me to. I disclaim that I ignore the reputability of the Journal or how far it ranks relative to Nature or Lancet.

Regarding your assesment of the lab-accident-origin theory as "what has been presented in favour of the "lab accident" hypothesis is some news statement to the effect that it was being 'investigated' by US intelligence agencies", I have to partially disagree. The many links provided in this discussion do note the fact that it is being a matter of current investigation affairs by the US government, BUT some of the articles go ahead and ask for experts to comment on the hypothesis, and some of the articles provide a final editorialized synthesis of the credibility of the hyopthesis. My point is that given the three parts of those news' RS on their coverage of the story: 1 = 'plain report that US is investigating it' + 2 = 'experts comments' + 3 = 'reporters final synthesis', Wikipedians discussing the coverage seem to ignore parts 2 and 3, which in many cases abstain to refer to the hypothesis as 'fringe' or 'conspiratorial'. I can provide the specific sources that support this particular point if you want me to.

On a final comment to your claim 'that there are many reports that cast serious doubt on this', I totally agree. I want only clarification of why a hypothesis that has logical, though highly improbable, odds of being plausible, is relegated to a Misplaced Pages entry about 'misinformation'. My point is to mention it in the article on the pandemic, with very little weight, and a caveat that it has been deemed highly unlikely at this point. I'll wait for the other involved editors to comment (@Darouet:,@MarioGom:) before moving on to a RfC. --Forich (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Acalycine, your analogy is useful to make my point clearer, let me expand on it. Suppose you read about a crazy hypothesis that "SARS-CoV-2 came from space", as you put it. Then you have at least two very RS (BBC and Reuters) mentioning the hypothesis, and this is important, they put a title like this on the news: 'Do SARS-CoV-2 came from space?'. Yes, with an interrogation mark. Lets suppose that this is click baiting style from these day and age (althouh I doubt that BBC and Reuters play those games). Within the articles you read the final conclusions, and they state: 'The origin is unknown. Experts assess this hypothesis to be plausible, but highly unlikey and purely speculative, unsupported by evidence other than some circumstantial evidence'. It that were the case, I as a Wikipedian, would feel like it deserves a mention, despite my own internal judgement on it being a crazy idea.--Forich (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Spanish-language paper (and I'm only commenting on this and nothing else, at least for the time being); for the benefit of everyone; the relevant passage mentions that the work done by researchers in at the WIV on the coronavirus and published in this 2015 paper (the same paper for which Nature has published a recent update, see "Editors’ note, March 2020" at the bottom) has "caused suspicions in relation to the possible origin of SARS-CoV-2 ". It does not comment directly on that specific matter, but then goes on to state that "recent genomic analyzes have revealed that SARS-CoV-2 is highly unlikely to be a laboratory product or a deliberately manipulated virus". There's no direct mention of the theory that "the virus leaked from the lab"; and even if the first quote above could be construed as such a mention the second quote stays any doubt on the matter. Concerning reliability, the paper is published (per official page, which leaves no doubt), by the University of Granada. Summary verdict (someone more knowledgeable in the medical arts will overrule me if I'm wrong): yes, reliable. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I probably agree with you on the inclusion of this upon reconsidering it. However I think the inclusion must adhere to WP:DESCF, and that it should describe that the perspective of 'lab-release' is not supported by scientific evidence, but rather it is claimed that it's supported by undisclosed/undescribed U.S. 'intelligence'. Should we include a mention of the probabilities? For example, something like "Some scientists point to evidence demonstrating the incidence of exposure to bat-originating SARS-related coronaviruses as evidence against this theory". This isn't worded well, but I think it's very notable. See the research here - 3% of rural people in areas sampled had antibodies for such viruses. If we reach a consensus on supporting inclusion, we'll surely need a consensus on how to write it, too. Acalycine (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I added this to the article, per suggestion of DocJames (talk · contribs) relating to a discussion at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#POV_fork. Note I have no position if there is a so called consensus or not, i just and dealing with a WP:POVFORK. Since this is the main medical article, clearly the consensus should be discussed here and the COVID-19 pandemic article should follow this article, not the other way around. Not sure if my opinion on which article follows the other is correct, but maybe DocJames knows. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Update: Second MEDRS to mention the hypothesis. The first one was the one from University of Granada, to which Special:Contributions/107.190.33.254 claimed that "It does not comment directly on that specific matter". I believe this second paper is less indirect in their mention of the hypothesis, but please review it.--Forich (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, quotes + a short analysis of the source, Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016., (emphasis mine, but you'll see why):

In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence (Andersen et al., 2020).

And, a bit later in the same paragraph, after explaining how RaTG13 is not that close to Sars-Cov-2, addressing "accidental laboratory theory" directly:

Anderson et al. cite multiple lines of strong evidence that argue, instead, in favor of various mechanisms of natural selection, either in an animal host before the virus was transmitted to humans or in humans after the zoonotic transmission event(s). These possibilities will be reviewed below. Nevertheless, speculation about accidental laboratory escape will likely persist, given the large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the facility’s proximity to the early outbreak, and the operating procedures at the facility (Zeng et al., 2016).

So, now we have direct mention that says that from what scientists know so far, any misconduct (i.e. deliberate manipulation) or negligence (i.e. accidental release) are, practically, implausible. As I mentioned earlier, citing WP:UNDUE, if a theory is, as in this case, rejected by reliable sources, we should not include it. WP:FALSEBALANCE goes in the same direction by saying that "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

would concur, for now, until there is a solid source which indicates the contrary--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Special:Contributions/107.190.33.254, I can see where you are coming from. I am glad that by discussing MEDRS we are no longer ignoring the hypothesis. My only request is to take a look at this other quote from the paper: Transparency and open scientific investigation will be essential to resolve this issue, noting that forensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable. How should we interpret that message, other than a call for further investigation and transparency? --Forich (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We need not interpret it, only quote it. The reader has the responsibility for interpreting, not the editors here who write the article. We should be very careful when there are disputed hypotheses to conclude that the one which is the less likely is necessarily untrue. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank your for your opinion, DGG but I believe you are missing the context. I provided a direct mention of the hypothesis in a MEDRS, then a fellow editor quoted parts of it and summarized it as if it was "practically, implausible", to which I quoted another part of the mentioned article, that called for "Transparency and open scientific investigation" that "will be essential to resolve this isssue". The main point of asking for an interpretation is that we are discussing how the quotes either invalidate the lab accident hypothesis (as Special:Contributions/107.190.33.254 argues) or keep it as a "reasonable explanation" as per the quote. This is standard procedure of editors to quote passages and discuss what a summary of it looks like, that can be incorporated into the text. If a topic is prone to misinterpration of editors, it is perfectly valid to ask for further clarification so that the issue can be resolved.--Forich (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Calls for transparency and independent investigations, especially in this wide context where it could refer to many things, can, I believe, be described independently of conspiracy theories. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

A few weeks ago, I changed the origin of the virus in the infobox from "bats" to "likely bats", which became "probably bats". I have no clue what the consensus in this messy talk page section is, but it might require the reversion of my edit. See . Benica11 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the discussion about the lab-accident theory

First, five disclaimers:

a) It is absurd to claim SARS-CoV-2 was man-made. There should be no mention at all at the pandemic entry of Misplaced Pages of any theories claiming so.

b) Per the above disclaimer, please avoid conflating the man-made and the lab-accident theories. This discussion concerns just the lab-accident theory.

c) What some editors could believe regarding the theories on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is irrelevant, whether they are in favor or against. All discussion needs to be grounded on RS or MEDRS; and, in the case of biomedical claims, only MEDRS should count as valid references.

d) The mainstream view, or scientific consensus (as far as I know), is to put very high weight on the claim that scientists do not know the exact circumstances of the original index case. They claim with almost certainty that SARS-CoV-2 crossed from an animal species to a human. They do not for sure know the details: they ignore how, when or where this zoonosis ocurred.

e) Now, lets address the lab-accident theory. By the point above, and per Misplaced Pages's due weight policy, at best (or worst?) we should not allocate more than one or two sentences to the claim. What follows is a sumary of the discussion of what wording to use.

The discussion (as synthetized by me, in chronological order):

1) Global Cerebral Ischemia, calls for the use of an op-ed from RS VOX. Note that op-eds are less reliable than pieces produced by Vox's news desk. Adjectives used by the journalist are: "potent, speculative and confusing discussion about the virus' origin". She first chose the adjective "potent" which means "persuasive".

2) Forich (myself), calls for the use of RS BBC. The news agency attributes Washington Post claiming "recent discussions in the US government about whether the WIV or another lab in Wuhan could have been the source of the virus behind the current pandemic". BBC claims "...there is no evidence of any kind that the Sars-CoV-2 virus (which causes Covid-19) was released accidentally from a lab". They also claim "The proximity of the Huanan Seafood and Wildlife Market in Wuhan, where the outbreak came to light, to at least two centres carrying out research on infectious diseases fuelled speculation about a link.". BBC says "there is currently no evidence that any research institute in Wuhan was the source of Sars-CoV-2" and "scientific work to trace the origin of the virus will continue". The news article's title, instead of saying "There is no evidence for lab release theory" was named as interrogation: "Is there any evidence for lab release theory?". In my opinion there is an incongruence between the title and the claims of "no evidence of any kind", specially since they mention circumstantial evidence of proximity (it is one kind of evidence, although very weak).

3) Azahariev, calls for the use of RS Reuters. The news agency attributes Fox News suggesting that "the Wuhan lab where virology experiments take place and lax safety standards there led to someone getting infected and appearing at a nearby 'wet' market, where the virus began to spread". Note that "to suggest" is weaker than "to claim".

4) Darouet, calls for the use of MEDRS (Ye et al, 2020, International Journal of Biological Sciences). The scientists state there that "Although questions remain, there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made either deliberately or accidentally". Note that this last conclusion refers to the accidental manufacture of SARS-CoV-2, which is very different to the accidental spread of a naturally made virus. Thus, this source is irrelevant to judge the validity of the lab-accident theory.

5) 107.190.33.254, claims that he searched Pubmed and found that MEDRS "fail to mention" the lab-accident theory. His opinion is that "The lack of mention in proper sources makes this a fringe theory". His premise seems to be that the any mention of the theory in a MEDRS would make it not a fringe theory.

6) 107.190.33.254, claims that "scholarly journals do not consider this theory seriously", but since he admited that he did not read any mention of it in a MEDRS I am not sure how he reached this conclusion.

7) Acalycine, calls for the use of an op-ed from FiveThirtyEight. In my opinion, not a reliable-enough source.

8) Acalycine, calls for the use of RS The Guardian. The news agency attributes unnamed "intelligence sources" the claim that "there is no current evidence to suggest coronavirus leaked from a Chinese research laboratory". The claim links to another article by The Guardian, but it states the same claim verbatim, without further elaboration.

9) My very best wishes, calls for the use of Live Science. In my opinion, not a reliable-enough source.

10) Swood100, calls for the use of a RS Wall Street Journal. It is a paywall article, I could not get access.

11) Swood100, calls for the use of RS CNN. The news agency attributes unnamed "US intelligence" the claim that they are "reviewing sensitive intelligence collection aimed at the Chinese government ... as they pursue the theory". The adjective "sensitive" was not CNN's, but the quoted unnamed source's. CNN also quotes Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian attributing unnamed "renowned medical experts around the world" the claim that "theories such as 'lab leaks'... lacking any scientific proof". Note that no adjectives were attached to the theory directly by CNN.

12) Swood100, calls for the use of NBC. In my opinion, not a reliable-enough source, at least for this topic.

13) 107.190.33.254, states this opinion: " doubt we should include every possible theory into this article unless it has been properly verified in more scientific literature". I am not sure what a "properly verified" theory is. He seems to have changed his mind over his former premise that a mere MEDRS mention was enough to include it. In my opinion, MEDRS mention is less strict than MEDRS verification (whatever that means).

14) Swood100, calls for the use of a press release from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In my opinion, not a reliable-enough source (at least regarding their opinion about the details of Covid-19's original index case).

15) DrBogdan, calls for the use of an op-ed from RS Forbes. Note that op-eds are less reliable than pieces produced by Forbes' news desk. The likelihood statement used by the journalist to refer to the theory is "increasingly believed". Note that this is vague, as an example: a theory that goes from 0% to 1% in probabiity is "increasingly believed" and at the same time exceptionally improbable. The journalist also attributes Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council Jamie Metzl the likelihood statement that the lab-accident theory is "likely". The journalist pushed for an elaboration from Metzl, and quotes him saying "I have no definitive way of proving this thesis” citing that access to the data and researchers in China has been denied so it was impossible for anyone to prove. The adjective used by the journalist is that the Wuhan lab "gains traction" as a source of Covid-19, which is a vague and timid qualification.

16) My very best wishes, calls for the use of MEDRS Science (or more precisely, its news branch, Sciencemag). The journal claims that US President Donald Trump's assertion of the theory, is "echoed" by remarks from German Minister of Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas, stating that “The whole world wants the exact origin of the virus to be clarified”. Sciencemag claims that "the assertions that the new virus was in that facility have not been backed by hard evidence". Sciencemag attributes (unnamed) scientists the likelihood statement of the theory being "less likely" than an elsewhere natural emergence. The same unnamed scientists are attributed by sciencemag to have a "skeptical" position on the lab-accident theory.

Also, Sciencemag claims that China may be investigating the location of the index case, and attributes "politicians and scientists" to be calling for the chinese to be "more transparent and to allow independent scrutiny".

17) 107.190.33.254, calls for the use of Businessinsider. In my opinion, not a reliable-enough source.

18) 107.190.33.254, points out that the op-ed from RS Vox used the adjective "theory du jour" to refer to the lab-accident theory. The meaning of "du jour" is "often used dismissively for something regarded as one in a series of passing fads".

19) MarioGom, incorrectly claims that he has read in this talk page "stuff that is going on at The Epoch Times, Daily Mail, Zero Hedge, Breitbart News, etc". I checked and none of those sources has been cited in this section of the talk page. I am not sure if MarioGom is comparing the reliability of the sources used in this talk page to the Epoch Times by the "etc" part. Perhaps he is unaware that, up to this point in the discussion, RS (Vox, The Guardian, CNN, Forbes) and MEDRS (Science, via Sciencemag) are mentioning the hypothesis in the precise terms that I laid out above, which are non dismissive (although skeptical in most cases).

20) 107.190.33.254, calls for the use of National Geographic. In my opinion, not a reliable-enough source, at least for this matter.

21) 107.190.33.254, calls for the use of Vice. In my opinion, not a reliable-enough source.

22) Darouet, claims that "scientific journals describe the lab leak idea as unsupported at best, and a conspiracy theory at worst". I am not sure of what are the sources that backup his claim.

23) 107.190.33.254, has this opinion "I think we can agree that the Trump-sponsored lab leak claim deserves no mention in the article". I am not sure of what logic he used to conclude that, maybe he did not read the dozens of posts from several editors clearly arguing the contrary.

24) My very best wishes, claims that "this controversy is highly notable (it affects relations between two big countries)" and concludes that it "must be included on the page". I concur with the conclusion, but disagree with the premise. The notability criterion must be for readers to understand what verifiable sources are telling about the pandemic, not about the relation between two big countries.

25) 107.190.33.254, acknowledge the MEDRS mention by Sciencemag. However he seemed to have change his mind on his premise that any mention of the theory in a MEDRS would make it not a fringe theory, because he dismisses it as being mentioned "in a very passing manner". I am not sure what is the difference between a "passing manner" mention and "not-passing-manner mention".

26) 107.190.33.254, calls for the use of Foreign Policy. In my opinion, not a reliable-enough source.

27) 107.190.33.254, points out that the from RS Vox quotes president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak calculating back-of-the-envelope probabilities of SARS-CoV-2's index case emergence concluding that "it's just not logical ". Note that the calculations of Daszak argument have not been validated by peer reviewers in any scientific journal, as far as I know.

28) Forich (myself), calls for the use of MEDRS (Ruiz and Jimenez, 2020, Ars Pharmaceutica). The authors claimed that (unnamed) scientists suspected at some point that SARS-Cov-2 could be related to WIV, based on the following circumstantial evidence: i) the coincidence of having a lab in Wuhan "working with coronaviruses"; ii) the coincidence that the 2015 publication of a chimeric virus with "great ability to reproduce itself" and large biosafety risks was co-authored by WIV scientists; iii) the claims from a pre print (not peer reviewed) of SARS-CoV-2 being similar to HIV, despite this being proved false. Note that none of these pieces of evidences are "hard", nor the authors suggest so.

29) 107.190.33.254, acknowledges MEDRS (Ruiz and Jimenez, 2020, Ars Pharmaceutica). He changes again his mind on this being a valid criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, and claims that it was not a "direct mention". I am not sure what he meant by "direct". A suspicion by scientists is a theory, and the authors clearly described it as being related to WIV. Even if the authors fail to properly cite who were being "suspicious" of WIV, I consider it a mention (the authors dedicated five sentences to it, along two whole paragraphs).

30) Alcalycine, reconsiders and "probably agrees" on inclusion. However he believes the "inclusion must adhere to WP:DESCF and that it should describe that the perspective of 'lab-release' is not supported by scientific evidence, but rather it is claimed that it's supported by undisclosed/undescribed U.S. 'intelligence'." He wanted to discuss whether to include a mention of the probabilities , but I could not understand his point there.

31) Forich (myself), calls for the use of MEDRS (Graham and Baric, 2020, Immunity). The likelihood statement used by the author is that the lab-accident theory "will likely persist". This is a vague qualification that does not indicate high credibility because it refers to its change-in-credibility over time instead of refering to its current credibility. The authors claim that (unnamed) social media people are speculating on the lab-accident theory, based on the following circumstantial evidence: i) the coincidence of "large collections of bat virome samples stored in labs in the Wuhan Institute of Virology", ii) the coincidence of the facility’s proximity to the early outbreak; and iii) the anecdotal evidence of the "operating procedures at the facility ". Note that none of these pieces of evidences are "hard", nor the authors suggest so.

32) 107.190.33.254, admits "direct mention" of the lab-accident theory by MEDRS (Graham and Baric, 2020, Immunity). In his opinion the authors conclude that laboratory neglicence at WIV is "practically, implausible". He also comes up with a new criterion for inclusion, "if a theory is, as in this case, rejected by reliable sources, we should not include it". I am not sure why he interpreted that the theory was rejected by Graham and Baric (2020). They said it was "speculation" that "will likely persist" and later implied that it was an explanation that "remained reasonable", which is hardly a rejection, in my opinion.

Even if the lab-accident theory gets rejected at MEDRS, if it gains enough traction and RS coverage we should describe it here in Misplaced Pages, at least until disproven by scientists. If a piece of information provides verifiable information on a topic it deserves a mention, of course, accompanied by cautions and nuances related to its validity.

Overall reommendation on wording

a) Avoid the use of "origin" because it can lead to conflating this with the man-made hypothesis b) Likelihood statements:

   - "less likely than an elsewhere natural emergence" (see 16 above)
   - "received with skepticism by scientists" (see 16 above)
   - "less probable that the WIV lab workers were the index case than 'the people in the wildlife trade' that deal with bats elsewhere" (see 27 above)

c) Adjectives/ qualification:

   - "potent discussion" (see 1 above)
   - "recent discussion" (see 2 above)    
   - "suggested by a news report" (see 3 above)
   - "theory du jour" (see 11 above)
   - "received echoe from politicians" (see 16 above)
   - "motivated suspicion" (see 29 above)
   - "social media speculation" (see 31 above)
   - "speculation" (see 32 above)

d) Hard evidence:

   - none (see 2, 8, 16 above)

e) Circumstantial evidence:

   - See 2, 28, 32 above

f) Current investigations on the theory:

   - US Intelligence (see 2, 3,11)
   - China, though allegedly they are being opaque (see 16)

Candidate paragraph

"There has been social media speculation and suggestions by news reports that SARS-CoV-2 spread as the result of an alleged accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The issue of whether this speculation is worthy of serious regards or dismissal is not conclusive. Although it has received descriptions of being a "potent discussion", being echoed by statements from politicians, and motivated suspicions among some scientists at some point; the speculation has also been dismissed as a 'theory du jour' and all sources agree that it is based on no hard evidence. Regardless of its current unresolved status of legitimacy, news reports confirm that the US intelligence is currently performing some sort of investigation about it; also, at least one serious peer reviewd article has acknowledge its existence although skeptically and cautiously describing it as 'social media speculation'".--Forich (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want so desperately to include this, start a proper RfC instead of making a WP:TLDR post. Oh, and please, don't try reading into the mind of others - since from what I see above much of it is wrong. Cheers, 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this has become a partisan issue and so rational argumentation is irrelevant. As far as I can tell, mentioning this issue in the article is seen by some as giving aid and comfort to Trump’s reelection campaign and so arguments in favor of it are rejected in a knee-jerk fashion. As with all partisan issues on Misplaced Pages, it will be decided by a brute-force vote and the “con” side believes that they have the numbers to prevail. In the meantime your arguments will be greeted with frivolous replies. For example, 107.190.33.254 proposed (a) that the Wall Street Journal was not a reliable source with respect to whether or not American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory, and (b) that suggesting that intelligence agencies are making such as assessment is a fringe theory. If you are satisfied with such responses then have at it. But the issue will be resolved in a partisan fashion. — Swood100 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record: "proposed that the Wall Street Journal was not a reliable source with respect to whether or not American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory" - False I said that whether the US intelligence agencies are investigating it is not relevant to the issue. "that suggesting that intelligence agencies are making such as assessment is a fringe theory" - False the fringe theory is that Covid originated in a lab (as demonstrated by RS). If you think that this involves righting great wrongs, then sadly I can't help you. If you still think there is any kind of reason to include this here (it's already mentioned in Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is a much better place), then feel free to make an RfC on the matter. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for misrepresenting you, User_talk:107.190.33.254. I hope we reach the best outcome for this entry by having civil discussion. I went bold and edited the entry with the candidate paragraph but someone reverted it. Since the regular talk page interaction has had slow progress, maybe we do need a request for comment to solve our differences.--Forich (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

First second third and fourth sentences of second paragraph

Should we include a section on the Sweden policy controversy?

It seems relevant to the Europe section and to the article as a whole.Php2000 (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

we're trying to shorten the article, not make it longer, though all topics are important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. We don't have a lockdown here, and not significantly more deaths per capita than other countries, along with avoiding as severe economic impacts, and that the disease will start to spread anyway as soon as the restrictions are lifted, along with having to handle the following economic depression and starvation. Here is a useful article in that regard: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-material/publikationsarkiv/e/estimates-of-the-peak-day-and-the-number-of-infected-individuals-during-the-covid-19-outbreak-in-the-stockholm-region-sweden-february--april-2020/ David A (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Belongs in the article on the country IMO. Different people read the data different ways is likely the most one can say. Sweden (328) has more deaths per capita than comparitors like Denmark (91), Norway (42), or Finland (50). But not as many as say Spain, Italy and France. Belgium counts more aggressively than others so really cannot be compared to anyone (Belgium is taking into account all deaths not just deaths with a positive PCR diagnosis).
• Than on the economics side of things, it is unclear if Sweden is doing any better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Given Sweden's different approach regarding this issue, I think that it is of public interest to compare the results. Also, our local experts estimated that we would have had 40% unemployment if we had gone ahead with as severe lockdowns as many other countries. We will still get 14% unemployment according to the latest estimates, but it is still far less bad than the alternative. David A (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Per "We will still get 14% unemployment" so the same as the United States? Norway is at 15% Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Sweden's deaths plateaued. It will help calculating the worldwide impact of the mitigation. Iluvalar (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Discussions about Sweden's policy has featured heavily in news from other states - I was surprised not see it in the article already. It's definitely relevant. Hentheden (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Here we have "daily confirmed COVID19 deaths per million people" Sweden is third globally after the UK and Ecuador. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• This one gives total deaths per million, which I find more useful . It puts Sweden down a notch. I wonder if Sweden is doing the same as the UK; including all deaths where COVID is mentioned on the death cert, even if the cause of death is something else? Here in the UK we've got the questionable policy (according to something doing the rounds on social media) that if someone got run over by a bus and then a post mortem found COVID infection, they'd be listed as a COVID death. Arcturus (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A big fan of Our World In Data as well and it shows Sweden is higher than all the countries around it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as their decision not to lockdown received news, criticism, and now, a high death toll. Definitely worth including imo. QueerFilmNerd 00:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Sweden's position is (almost) unique in the West and the MSM give it a great deal of attention. There should be a section about it in the article. Arcturus (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Many should oppose to adding more sections, because the page starting have some delay on loading the content even with a "high performance" computer or internet. It should be placed somewhere else related to COVID-19 pandmeic. Regice2020 (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there is a consensus for adding this section so far. David A (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there is. Arcturus (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Are some skilled editors willing to start working on such a section then? As I mentioned earlier, I think that the complete lockdowns that much of the rest of the world are doing seem unrealistic, as the disease will automatically start to spread just as much as in Sweden as soon as the countries open up again, and then they will have economic depression, massive unemployment numbers, and likely starvation on top of the pandemic to deal with. David A (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Sweeden took a novel contrarian position related to lockdown and has received widespread press coverage for it, thus WP:DUE to include, regardless the objections to article length (that are possibly and attempt to censor using WP:TOOLONG as an excuse). TOOLONG is not a justification to exclude important content that helps with WP:NPOV, this should be obvious. There is clear early consensus here to add, thus I started a section Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Attribution for Trump image in misinformation page

Trump turned to William Bryan and asked "is there a way we can do something like that" and ended with "So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with." . He did not straight suggested to the general public to inject bleach. The misinformation happened, through the media, a funny Lysol advertisement and political BS. That's why I agreed to put this picture in the misinformation chapter. I deleted the image until we find a caption which does not spread the misinformation itself without attribution. Iluvalar (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I restored the video per the earlier consensus: reliable sources cover it as Trump suggesting it, so any of our personal feelings about whether or not he suggested it are WP:OR, AFAICT. -sche (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The use of the word "might" in the caption satisfactorily addresses this, in my view. I'm open to discussion about making some tweaks if others disagree, but we'll need to keep it concise without taking out the information that's there presently. I added a hidden text warning to the video not to modify it without discussing at talk, since otherwise it's going to keep getting removed. {{u|Sdkb}}  18:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Surely reliable sources stating that Trump suggested injecting bleach when he didn't is enough to make them no longer reliable sources? 82.17.189.66 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Iluvalar. It is also completely irrelevant information inserted into an information page about an extremely serious topic just to take the opportunity to score some cheap partisan political points, instead of focusing on genuinely informing the public at large about verifiable data. David A (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are making a different point than Iluvalar; be careful not to speak for others. Re your point, you had an opportunity to air your concerns at the prior discussion. It's now time to move on. {{u|Sdkb}}  18:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb, I tried to modify first and have been reverted, I will try this path again and see. But it can't stay like this, this is EXACTLY the misinformation I want to illustrate.

@-sche, yes read again that "consensus" because I was part of it. As well as Doc james asking for a better caption. I don't think you delivered on that front. I'll try an edit again soon. Iluvalar (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As per what sdkb says, the caption is sufficient with its usage of 'might' to fit WP:NPOV. Can you suggest another caption so that we know what your contention with this one is? Acalycine (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I tried something. I wish I knew what those 2 talked before the press conference. Iluvalar (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump suggested more researches. He said "So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with." . Let's be clear, the research he suggested out of context, sounds stupid. There might be a context or it might just have been stupid. Either way he asked for more researches. No one listening to that press conference would have go out to buy syringe at the drug store to cure his cold symptoms. Our caption should be clear about that. As it is today, this is the misinformation I wanted to illustrate. We could put a box around and label it "misinformation" that would work too. Iluvalar (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

At one point he raises it just as a research suggestion, but then toward the end of the clip, he states more directly that injections work to get rid of the virus. The clip/caption is fine; let's just leave it be and address some of the areas of the article that need it rather than getting sucked into the political wormhole. {{u|Sdkb}}  06:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm contributing in Misplaced Pages to get stuck in political wormhole. I'm here to prevent POV pushes and this is one. I'm Canadian, I have little interest in this political thing. For the time being, I removed the image again. We could also neutralize the caption by giving 3 different point of view, but that route would just make the caption of the image too big to be useful. Please discuss about the caption problem before adding again a non-neutral statement. Iluvalar (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Iluvalar's removal and I oppose restoring it. IMO this picture, with or without caption, has no place in this article, which is about the general, worldwide pandemic. Consider adding it to the article about misinformation, and possibly COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. But not here. This article should have a global view rather than a US-centric one. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a consensus for keeping the image description text as it is then. David A (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So is somebody willing to either remove the image or turn the text less slanted? David A (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

fake info re WHO

The article contains sentences such as:

The WHO issued its first technical briefings on 10 and 11 January, warning nations about a strong possibility of human-to-human transmission and urged precautions due to the similarity to earlier SARS and MERS outbreaks. On 20 January, the WHO said it was "now very clear" that human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus had occurred, given that healthcare workers had been infected. On 27 January, the WHO assessed the risk of the outbreak to be "high at the global level".

However, this is clearly contradicted by official tweets such as https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152

As Jan 14, the WHO was still telling the world that preliminary investigation revealed no evidence of human-to-human transmission.

Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #ChinaFlag of China.

"warning nations about a strong possibility" "strong possibility"?? on January 10/11? What's the source for this? It is clear that Misplaced Pages is being edited by people who embedding fake information that can easily be disproven. --64.121.152.158 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Preliminary investigations" - that's all that needs to be said Ed6767 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"What's the source for this"; if you looked at the citations you would have seen numerous citations like http://archive.is/7Pgq4, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/against-humanity-trump-condemned-for-who-funding-freeze, and https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/who-cited-human-transmission-risk-in-january-despite-trump-claims. Also, January 14 is a different day than January 20. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that WHO issued a number of statements saying that there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission for a week or so relying on Chinese sources, for example this no evidence of significant human-to-human on 5 January 2020 ignoring Taiwan's warning in late December. I'm not sure what technical briefings are, but if it is not public announcement and only made in private to other agencies, then the WHO is failing in its public duty, saying in private something different to public announcements. The wording as it is is clearly trying to absolve WHO of blame, using sources that are trying to blame Trump, which changed from "warned of potential human-to-human transmission" to "strong possibility". It would make it a POV statement relying on non-neutral sources. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: relying on Chinese sources - this is quite literally WHO's mandate. All they can do is rely on the information given to them by States, and are under no obligation to even disclose such information against the wishes of the State. This is international law. Look at the 2005 IHRs. I'm not sure how somebody could criticise NPOV wording after knowing what WHO's mandate and powers actually are. They're not weapons inspectors. Furthermore, can you link to Taiwan's 'warning'? Because the most recent RS say Taiwan's 'warning' wasn't a 'warning' at all, but merely a request for information about the atypical pneumonia which is...standard for most states to be asking. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The Taiwan CDC warned WHO by email of seven cases in Wuhan as well as requesting information - . They also started implementing control and quarantine measures the same day they sent the email. That is however by the by to the more salient point, which is that the WHO issued public announcements something different from what they say in technical briefings, which appeared to be private communications - The Guardian said they have seen the communications, but did not publish the sources of these communications, so we can't even know what is being said in these communications since different reports in The Guardian said somewhat different things. The WHO is guilty at the least of dishonesty in their public announcements. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll allude to Tedros' response here and point out that the WHO had received many such requests for information from States at the time of this e-mail, that the first report came from Wuhan, and that Taiwan was asking for information, not 'warning' the WHO of anything. The WHO was receiving information from Wuhan on the same day, and had knowledge of the same internet reports/rumours that Taiwan had knowledge of in order to make the inquiry to the WHO. To be honest, none of what you have said regarding the email is a strong rebuttal of any of these facts (assuming you still claim the email was a 'warning'). They also started implementing control and quarantine measures the same day they sent the email. - this is fantastic news for Taiwan and speaks to their quick pandemic precautionary response, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to your original point. I'm also not sure I entirely understand your point regarding announcements: the WHO is guilty at the least of dishonesty in their public announcements. - which ones do you refer to? Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If you ignore that telling them that there were at least 7 cases of "atypical pneumonia" to be a warning, then Wuhan did not warn WHO either since they were only informing them. There were many statements by WHO even after their technical briefings that warned about human-to-human transmission risk on 10 January (as claimed by The Guardian) - here the public announcements all said there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission and no cases of infections among health workers - 12 January 2020, 13 January, 14 January, as well as tweets on 14 January and 16 January (although it said later that day they cannot exclude the possibility of human-to-human transmission). This is just me googling for a few minutes, there might be more if I look further. Hzh (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The e-mail got the information about the 7 cases from a news report, presumably from China. My point is that it's not a warning when WHO was already aware of the situation. If you're telling me the following constitutes a 'warning', you and I must have a very, very different idea of what 'warning' means.

News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment. I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us. Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter. - this is transparently a request for information, as one can see by the second-last sentence.

Wuhan did not warn WHO either since they were only informing them. - very much a false equivalence here, Wuhan used proper notifying channels in their formal notification of the situation on the 31st - this on the other hand was simply an e-mail.

Here are the facts, courtesy of WHO officials:

WHO emergencies director Michael Ryan said on Monday, however, that Taiwan did not tell the WHO anything it did not already know. "There was no reference made in that query to anything other than to what had previously been reported in news media and actually referred to a response from the Wuhan health authorities clarifying and confirming that the cases existed," he said. "The information from Taiwan was in line with information that we had received from other sources," Ryan said. He pointed to "more detailed" information received on Dec. 31 through its Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources platform from Wuhan describing the cluster.

In regards to although it said later that day they cannot exclude the possibility of human-to-human transmission - your admission here is precisely the point. These announcements do exactly what you claim WHO has failed to do: tell the public the same information it was giving in technical briefings. I'll note that they were labelled as preliminary investigations as well, and I'll also direct you towards this 14th of Jan. government post that explicitly says h-2-h transmission cannot be ruled out, and this tweet (if you haven't seen it yet). Since you haven't really expanded upon this point: technical briefings, which appeared to be private communications - can you link me to the information regarding these private comms.? Not sure how you could know about them if they were private, unless there was some news report afterwards.

I must say, these are pretty standard (and weak) contentions by now which have been debunked and rebutted time and time again on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere - so if you don't have any revelatory/novel arguments I don't really see the point of continuing this, given the mountain of evidence against this line of argument. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to get hung up about something (with regards to Taiwan) which I said is by the by with regards to the main point. You'll have to ask The Guardian about the technical briefings, since they did not give any information on the sources, no links, nothing (which led me to suspect that they are private communications). It does seem like you are excusing what the WHO is doing, the point is with the dates - they insisted on emphasizing no evidence of human-to-human transmission (repeating the Chinese line) days after they were apparently talking about "strong possibility of human-to-human transmission" on 10-11 January (per The Guardian, although they did not give sources that say that). That is evidence of their deliberate failure to inform and warn the public, however much you wish to deny it, it is in their public announcements on 12-14 January. Hzh (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Note also that most prominent early victim Li Wenliang who warned about possible SARS-like disease in December was hospitalized on 12 January, which made the Wuhan source dated 14 January that says "no clear evidence of person-to-person transmission" an outright lie. Wuhan authorities must have also known cases of infections among health workers by 12 January, especially when you consider that Li Wenliang wasn't even treating patients with pneumonia (he was treating someone with an eye infection who was later revealed to be also infected by coronavirus). Hzh (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to know the difference between sustained and limited human-to-human transmission. From their point of view, cases like Li's could've happened from exposure to faeces or other bodily fluids, which is an example of limited human-to-human transmission, and is the case with many infections - it usually happens within families. That's different from sustained human-to-human transmission, which is the case with COVID-19 (i.e. you get it from somebody breathing on you). Investigations were still on-going at this time, as they mention in the tweets. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Here's yet another WHO warning from 14 Jan. Acalycine (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no mentions of any difference between sustained and limited human-to-human transmission in their 12 and 13 January public announcements, and any such difference is irrelevant since they had already supposedly warned about human-to-human transmission in technical briefings on 10 and 11 January, which is entirely the point of The Guardian articles trying to defend the WHO. Still, on 13 January, they said that there has been no suggestion of human to human transmission of this new coronavirus. There have been no infections reported among health care workers (link given earlier). That they also said no infection among health care workers indicates that they did not make any such distinction (and Li was already infected and admitted to hospital by then). The point is that they already considered human-to-human transmission a strong possibility before that, but they chose to ignore that, using instead Chinese announcements (which thanks to your link to a Chinese statement, we can tell that they are outright lies given that by that time medical workers were already getting infected). You can make the excuse that Wuhan did not inform the WHO of infections among health care workers, but the WHO choosing to ignore what they said in their technical briefings while trying to assure the public there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission is a dereliction of duty, and that is entirely on their fault. Hzh (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the political stuff which is ultimately irrelevant to us as editors anyway. We go by sources not our personal feelings of who did what. But I don't understand the intrigue above. It's not like the WHO is running meetings at where they're sharing all the secrets of the novel Coronavirus in secret with whoever, and the Guardian. If the Guardian are talking about it, it's quite likely it was on the internet, or widely shared with journalists or maybe in a few cases sent to the various partners/governments a number of who likely have copies they can make available.

Indeed a quick search finds which while saying Current data suggests that there is no or limited human-to-human transmission also says:

For other coronaviruses such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, human-to-human tranmission occured due to breaches in IPC practices. Thus, the central focus of any prevention/control strategy is protecting healthcare workers with appropriate IPC supplies and ensuring basic health logistics at responding facilities.

A complicating factor is the WHO website is set up to ensure people get current guidance and not old stuff that is out of date, so I'm guessing some stuff is either gone or hidden somewhere. Still Internet Archive etc helps. Of course since we're talking about stuff which developed rapidly there's no guarantee all we're looking for is archived, still it's likely some has been.

And indeed it's easy to find other stuff e.g. which while not commenting on human-to-human transmission, does recommend early recognition so IPC can be implemented quickly. The “evidence of amplified or sustained human-to-human transmission” well since it includes a direct quote it's easy to find,

That's actually potentially a good place to look for other documents. Although I'm not sure how good the filtering is, since the period we're talking about is early January you can just sort by issue date and go to 2020 . That said, I didn't find anything else. The home care stuff was 20th January so seems to be largely outside the dates of concern since I think there's agreement that by 20th January the WHO was clear there was human-to-human transmission. The RCCE stuff which I'd already come across doesn't seem that relevant and is also dated 26th January (I may or may not have come across a draft in the archives, I can't recall because as said it doesn't seem that relevant).

The Reuters report seems to confirm the press briefing. I don't know if you can find a complete record of it somewhere, but as a press briefing it's obviously not secret.

BTW, the Thailand example is an interesting one. While that news briefing just mentions no evidence for human-to-human transmission, this more detailed disease outbreak news says:

As the traveler did not report having visited the market linked to most of the other cases, it is vital that investigations continue to identify the source of infection. To date, China has not reported any cases of infection among healthcare workers or contacts of the cases. Based on the available information there is no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. No additional cases have been detected since 3 January 2020 in China.

Additional investigation is needed to ascertain the presence of human-to-human transmission, modes of transmission, common source of exposure and the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected. It is critical to review all available information to fully understand the potential transmissibility among humans.

i.e. while they said there is no evidence, also said we need to work out what actually happened here.

Basically, from what I can tell, early on the WHO was saying that there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission, I assume since they felt from the information available at the time, there was indeed no clear evidence. However they did warn that given the experiences with other Coronaviruses, countries should be on the lookout for such transmission, and also in healthcare settings, take precautions as if these was such transmission, based in part on experience with previous Coronaviruses. They also suggested the public follow normal advice for dealing with respiratory illnesses i.e. washing hands, keeping away from people who are sick, covering with your elbow when sneezing or coughing. After a while, they began to warn that there may be limited human-to-human transmission but it did not seemed to be sustained. This culminated in their 20 January announcement that there was human-to-human transmission.

I assume they expected that relevant experts would either directly read or be advised by those who read their technical briefings, rather than going by 320 character limited Tweets. It may have been true that by 14 January, Li Wenliang was in intensive care, but I don't see any reason to doubt it's true that the Chinese government didn't tell the WHO that he was. I don't think it's even clear the central government knew of his case. Heck, are we even sure those in charge of his case had even decided it was nCoV by then?

P.S. I think the "strong possibility" may be poor wording on the part of the Guardian. It's possible these words were used in the press briefing on 14 January although I couldn't confirm that. I'm not convinced these words were used in the technical briefings. I'm not sure if they commented on the possibility, I suspect they lacked sufficient information to come to a judgment on that. However based on previous experience they did say that precautions should be taken as if if there was human-to-human transmission in health care settings. Note that although the 15 April Guardian article uses those words, the sentence is worded in such a way that it's unclear if they are referring to the press briefing, the technical briefings or both. And they link to the 9 April report as evidence for the technical briefing stuff, yet those words don't occur in the 9 April report.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to find the sources (although the date for some is uncertain since no precise date is given ), but I'm not sure it clears up anything with regards to what the WHO was doing. What do you think possessed them to keep repeating "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" when they could have just said they don't know? The WHO already had experience with SARS and MERS, and should therefore be advising people to be cautious because of the possibility of human-to-human transmission instead of saying "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". Any evidence would need to be provided by China, and people studying the outbreak looking back said that there had been "human-to-human transmission" as early as mid-December , so all the "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" is likely to be falsehood promoted by China. Hzh (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Short description issue

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Short_description#Short_description_broken_at_COVID-19_pandemic_and_possibly_elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

 Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}}  06:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The German intelligence information about Xi Jinping ordering the WHO to withhold information

Should we add a section about that the Chinese Dictator Xi Jinping apparently personally told the World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom to "delay a global warning" about the threat of COVID-19 during a conversation via a personal phone call on January 21 this year?

The German newspaper Der Spiegel originally published the information, citing the country's Federal Intelligence Service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/corona-krise-bundesregierung-zweifelt-an-us-these-zur-entstehung-des-coronavirus-a-51add7cf-96b6-4d04-a2d0-71ce27cff69c

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/coronavirus-who-china-xi-jinping-tedros-adhanom-phone-call-6402951/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8304471/Chinas-president-Xi-Jinping-personally-requested-delay-COVID-19-pandemic-warning.html

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1187877.shtml

David A (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The C.I.A. seems to agree with the German intelligence information:

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-cia-believes-china-tried-stop-who-alarm-pandemic-1503565

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2020/05/13/covid-19-after-german-intelligence-now-cia-believes-china-tried-to-coerce-who.html

David A (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Especially since it seems that the WHO has immediately said it's untrue. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Xi and Tedros spoke by phone on January 21 during which the Chinese President “urged” the WHO chief to “hold back information about a human-to-human transmission and to delay a pandemic warning.” - this does not make any sense, since human-to-human transmission was already declared on the 20th...It is also contradictory and thus slightly amusing to claim Tedros was pressured to delay a global warning" about the threat of COVID-19 when the WHO had clearly published a multitude of warnings by this time, including technical guidance about virus detection to UN states (on the 10th I believe). Acalycine (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do not think that we know exactly what kind of information about COVID-19 that the Bundesnachrichtendienst and C.I.A. say that they have evidence for that Xi asked Tedros to withhold. David A (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but the foundational claim that Xi and Tedros had a phone call on that day has been refuted, and is even more unlikely given that h-2-h was declared the day before (according to this timeline). What additional information about h-2-h (other than it being sustained and thus meeting WHO's criteria) would even exist? Acalycine (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not use the daily mail for anything. We need very high quality sources as the popular press seems all to prone to spreading questionable information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail isn't the original source. It seems to be Der Spiegel and Newsweek, which I think are reliable newspapers.

Anyway, I am not certain exactly what kind of information about COVID-19 that Xi Jinping supposedly told Tedros to withhold, but I hope that we will get more elaborate official information releases from both of the intelligence services soon. David A (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The more I think about this the stranger it seems. It's simply not the practice of security agencies to go public with material like this. Their primary role is surrounded with secrecy. They don't play politics. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It likely depends on whether or not they think that public knowledge about a massive threat would be better or worse for national security. David A (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps think about who would like to frame China as a 'massive threat' in those countries, and who administers these intelligence agencies, and then you may have some well-founded skepticism of these matters. ;) Acalycine (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The Chinese Communist party has several hundred nightmarish concentration camps in which it imprisons anybody who sufficiently disagrees with their worldview, along with an Orwellian social credit system to discover them. It is not the kind of subject matter that you should make spiteful smileys about, nor the kind of regime that you should put your trust in. David A (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Good luck with that, man. Acalycine (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies if I was being rude. I just don't think that real life imperialistic extreme Orwellian tyranny is anything to joke about. David A (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, there is contradictory information given WHO announced human-to-human transmission on January 20th, so it makes no sense for Xi to demand WHO to withhold H2H information on January 21st. The timeline is flipped and doesn't make any sense. There is a lot of questionable misinformation floating around that contradicts itself, we should now be promoting misinformation on Misplaced Pages.Rwat128 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include it of course the WHO denied it, and the denial makes it WP:DUE. Obvious unassailable WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Include, we can of course also include the WHO’s denial. WHO is not a WP:RS, Der Spiegel is... Not really sure what the problem is here or why people think its appropriate to make their own arguments completely independent of the reported facts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

People do that because politicians in all countries are cynically taking advantage of this virus to convince their citizens they are doing a wonderful job of protecting them from something evil and foreign. Right now, nothing in the news cycle should be taken on face value. Of course, if you totally trust all the politicians in your own country.... HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats exactly why wikipedia uses WP:RS and not politicians as sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate further input here. David A (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

United States section

The U.S. section seems to have become quite bloated. Does anyone else feel that it needs to be trimmed? Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed a tiny few of the lowest-hanging fruits / least vital details, and condensed the wording in some other places, but there is probably more to be done, especially considering that the section will need to be expanded with new events. -sche (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

needs to be trimmed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have done more trimming and believe that more will need to be done. As we move forward with the U.S. now beginning to reopen many places we will need to make room for that new information as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh brother. Just finished doing my feeble, unprofessional best and the section is immediately tagged and I'm given unasked for advise. grrr Gandydancer (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"cure" claim by California bio-firm

https://www.investors.com/news/technology/coronavirus-treatment-sorrento-says-it-has-cure/ 50.111.6.129 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Research needs to progress a long way beyond the stage they're at before any claim can be made that this is useful for the general population. And I think we would would need information direct from a scientific/medical source rather than an investors' website. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

as far as being verified, there is no verification - however, this company has ties to China

Subsection about pandemic in Brazil, Germany and Russia

It's strange that there is no special subsections for situations in Brazil, Germany and Russia from top-10. Is it due to political views of Misplaced Pages contributors. Or, maybe, these countries are not such important as the USA, France and United Kingdom? I hope, the information on the Misplaced Pages will be more politically neutral than now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannor147 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Each have their own article. Look around more before posting in a silly manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.61.192 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Cannor147. There was a large discussion about which countries to include a while back (listed as current consensus item 5), and Brazil/Germany/Russia didn't make the cut. The world situation has changed since then, and I'm open to exploring the possibility that bias against non-English speaking countries may have contributed to the prior decision. But before they can be added to the article, there needs to be discussion here that leads to a new consensus reached. This article is extremely pressed for space, and there's just not room to include every major country, so you'll need to argue why those three are as important as the ones currently included according to some criteria. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}}  22:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree 4 neutrality we need to have sections on the worst hit countries. Top Ten.Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" --Moxy 🍁 00:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• The countries listed in the article reflects the situation around a month or two ago, since then the infections in a number of countries have increased considerably. The situation has changed, therefore we can revisit which countries to include. Being in the top 10 in the number of cases isn't a good indication how bad the situation in their countries, since many countries grossly under-report their cases. I would say yes for including Brazil and Russia, but no for Germany, possibly we can remove France as well. Germany isn't that interesting apart from keeping its death rate down. Personally I think Sweden is a more interesting example to include given their different policy to the rest of Europe. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation image: Trump or Khamenei?

This picture has been removed, with the following edit summary: "We don't have room for a second visual here, and there have been repeated objections to the one just added". What is your opinion? -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Iran Leader Refuses US Help, Citing Virus Conspiracy Theory". VOA News. 26 March 2020.
2. "Donald Trump says he was being sarcastic when he suggested injecting disinfectant could treat coronavirus". ABC News. 25 April 2020.

@Tobby72: I removed the photo per the consensus from here. The Trump photo has consensus per this discussion, although there have been a few waves above about the caption. {{u|Sdkb}}  19:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not with that caption. David A, Doc james and myself explicitly asked for a better caption in that exact dicussion. Iluvalar (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

They asked for a better caption than the one used for the clip at the misinformation article, and this is the one we wrote and agreed upon. {{u|Sdkb}}  23:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I asked for a better caption, you proposed something at 3:00 AM and at 7:00AM it was already in the article with David A who still managed to had time to disagree. I'm sorry but you can't call that a consensus. Iluvalar (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither image/video should be included. I'd recommend moving the Trump video to the misinformation topic. We've seen plenty of misinformation from the leaders of the United States, China, Iran, Brazil, Russia, and others. I don't think it's worth singling out Trump here. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• No image obvious WP:BLP violation that would be WP:UNDUE. Common sense should tell the OP this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that singling out Trump, when there are far more extreme world leaders that have said far more extreme and deliberately untrue things about this pandemic, is partisan and unprofessional for an encyclopaedia. David A (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

David, why are you bringing the metric of "extremity of statement" into this discussion? We're talking about notability and notoriety here, I'm not sure why you're bringing politics into it. Trump's gaffe is the most well-known one, at this point in time. Do you have any better suggestions, friend? Acalycine (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Because I still think that trying to make specific politicians look silly is inappropriate for a supposed to be matter-of-fact information page, and that if people in general want to obsess over how awful said specific politicians are, there are objectively far worse examples in the world than Trump. Yet almost all media seems strangely obsessed with him. David A (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Any scientist can add their scientific data about this claim...

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.

There is no scientific evidence that ANY virus could cause a disease. That is when a control group would be taken in consideration in the research of virus and what it does.

This is just found even out publicly and it really should be discussed openly. So it is really possible that this wikipedia page about Coronavirus could change dramatically when the germ theory is re-opened on discuss under a magnifier on openminded group of scientists.

Here´s some points given of the idea that germ theory could be totally scientifically wrong. https://www.whatreallymakesyouill.com/germtheory.html

Of course that also promotes a book but still makes a clear point that this idea should be openly re-viewed and talked aloud.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.211.135 (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The side you mentioned is crap. Any monkey can write something like this on the internet, so it is not a good idea to get your information from such dubious sites. TheImaCow (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Clump of references

There's a big clump of references at the start of the reference section identified only by their number, but that appear properly when you hover the cursor over them. It appeared a few days ago, I think. Does anyone know what caused this and how to fix it? {{u|Sdkb}}  00:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The see also links

The see also links at the bottom of the article are definitely not the best ones we could have. Can we try to come up with some better ones, keeping in the mind the guidelines at MOS:SEEALSO? {{u|Sdkb}}  00:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest maybe just...

Coronavirus disease 2019

COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory

Pandemics

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic

All are linked within the topic but I suspect when the reader hits the end, these topics may be the most relevant for continued reading. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: Sounds good to me. I'm going to remove most of the ones there and replace with those. {{u|Sdkb}}  04:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

useful?

would this be useful here and --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For us, the data is primary source. Maybe there is something useful to dig in the reports ? I am still really surprised that everyone seem to take this inferred dates as TRUTH. As far as I know, a switch of base in RNA can happen in both direction, Any mutation could have happened BEFORE the common narrative. We still find new lineage of 20+ mutations all linked to the first completely hypothetical case without never ever questioning the chronology ? If someone can explain this to me... Iluvalar (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Coronababy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Coronababy. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17#Coronababy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 _contribs 15:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

growing consensus about relative safety of being outdoors

It seems that there is an expert consensus that likelihood of infection is far greater indoors than outdoors, with 1 in 7,300 cases the result of outdoor exposure in a recent Chinese study. Interested in suggestions from experienced editors as to where this information would be best placed (i.e., under Transmission, Prevention, etc.). Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Being indoors with a crowd versus being outdoors alone, for sure the outdoors alone is best. Being outdoors in a crowd could be a concern still though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked the source material. They analysed the location of each outbreak, not the location where infection took place. And the data was gathered mostly in January (winter). Not possible to generalise from this. Robertpedley (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Southern hemisphere pedant on patrol - January is only winter in the non-tropical northern hemisphere. Quite a few of us live elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Levenson, Michael; Parker-Pope, Tara; Gorman, James (2020-05-15). "What We Know About Your Chances of Catching the Virus Outdoors". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

The consensus of the Chinese, or you mean the position of the CCP? This is silly. We dont do medical consensus from a NYT article, read WP:MEDRS. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

School closures -- current info

Currently, the last paragraph of the lead has a sentence that states "Schools, universities, and colleges have closed either on a nationwide or local basis in 186 countries, affecting approximately 98.5 percent of the world's student population". This is false, because a few countries have opened now and the number of countries closed has dropped from 194 to this value over the last few weeks. I'd like to get consensus on what to do about this. Should we make it past tense "At the pandemic's height, schools, universities, and colleges were closed... in 194 countries, affecting approximately 98.5 percent of the world's student population", make it current "Schools, universities, and colleges are closed...currently affecting", or do something else? sam1370 (talk / contribs) 06:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hum yes how best to word this. It is unclear if we are at the height of the pandemic yet and schools may close again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I think we should at least change it to make the wording current, so as not to cause misinformation. I will do so. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 21:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also like the current wording changed to reflect the fact that in many countries, while students weren't physically attending school, they were participating in remote learning. Teachers were working very hard, as were most students. Simply describing the schools as being closed is misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RECENTISM concerns, I think the most appropriate thing for the lead would be use the statistic at the pandemic's height, but I share Doc James' concern that we don't really know for sure where we are on the curve. Since this article is supposed to be in the past tense, what about just changing "have closed" to "closed"? {{u|Sdkb}}  23:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RELTIME (overlaps with WP:RECENTISM), there should be no hesitation in changing "X has happened" to "X happened at time T" in most cases. While the assumption that this article will remain unedited for 5 years is unrealistic, there's no need to make this article newsy except in places where it's really unavoidable (if there are any such places in the text); those can usually be {{as of}}'d. Schools were mostly closed in March/April/May AFAIR, depending on the country (needs checking). Boud (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

How about "Schools, universities, and colleges have closed either on a nationwide or local basis, at one point in time, in 186 countries, affecting approximately 98.5 percent of the world's student population"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. David A (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Still doesn't address the simple fact that thousands of schools are still operating, albeit online. They are not closed. HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Closed to in-person learning"? or something similar? And then mention that most are doing some form of remote learning. QueerFilmNerd 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The learning is still in-person. It just avoids gathering students in the one physical classroom. HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What has really happened is that, rather than schools being closed (a perspective of those who see them as child minding centres?), physical classrooms have been replaced with interactive online classrooms. This is not as radical as it seems. My country, Australia, has been doing it for decades with the School of the Air. HiLo48 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - CFR & IFR estimates

Are the CFR and IFR estimates we are citing, up to date? The CEBM page was originally posted on 17 March, but it is updated every day. Pinging Wikmoz, David A, Global Cerebral Ischemia, you've all edited this sentnce. Ref ] Robertpedley (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence a few days ago as the CFR range (0.82% to 9.64%) is too broad to be useful and the IFR range is out of date. The sentence was immediately restored so I edited to add the last revision date... as best as I can tell because it's unclear when each section is updated. - Wikmoz (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The "as of 15 March" for IFR not accurate. I updated the estimate on May 7th and that's reflected in the access date that was in the reference. The upper limit for IFR was revised upward to 0.41% (from 0.37%). After checking again, I have updated the date of the reference and the access date (previously May 7); the CEBM page was updated May 18th. As far as CFR, on April 30th CEBM decided to stop updating estimates of CFR, stating "CFRs across countries are, therefore, highly variable, depending on who is tested for what reasons. There is no consistency." As an aside, CEBM's estimated IFR range seems to match up pretty well with serology (and PCR) studies of infection prevalence listed here (apparently maintained by Chirag Patel of Harvard's Department of Bioinformatics). Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The UPDATED date at the top of the article appears to relfect when the top section and image is updated. The rest of the content is updated at a much lower frequency so it's deceptive. Unfortunately, it's not clear when each section is updated. "As of" was a poor choice of wording. "Last revised" may be better. I've updated the date for IFR to 2 May accordingly based on WayBackMachine. - Wikmoz (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, my view regarding this issue is limited to that we should include the latest and most reliable IFR estimates in order to inform the public about the true death rate among all the people who get infected. It helps to avoid unnecessary mass-panic and overreactions. David A (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, looks good. I thought it was May 7th, but that must've just been the day I'd checked the page. Cheers. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your contributions, and for updating the page.Robertpedley (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you yourself. David A (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also want to reiterate that; thanks to both of you. The calm, kind professionalism demonstrated by a number of editors on this article is much appreciated during these dark and uncertain times. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of unbalance template to Cause section

I nominate the Cause section of this article to be unbalanced because is does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources on the topic of minority theories on the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. This entry, as evidenced by the discussion in Talk page: question of origin, shows a group of editors holding the view that the lab-accident theory should not be mentioned and, despite of having their justification received criticism from many editors, they resist valid proposals of middle ground in ways that are unproductive. Three examples of this, are: i) the compromise of inserting a mention with little weight to correspond to its weight in RS; ii) the compromise of admitting that circumstantial evidence per se can sustantiate inclusion in Misplaced Pages, as it happened with the Huanan Market origin speculation; iii) the compromise of admitting that the rule of inclusion, initially established to be a mere mention in a MEDRS, has been moved to tighter standards, allegedly to suit their point view of avoiding mentioning the lab-accident theory.--Forich (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am also very suspicious of the Chinese Communist Party's very secretive handling of this pandemic, and how they have taken advantage of it to buy up the businesses of many other countries at a bargain rate, among other destructive actions against the rest of the world, but we need some reliable evidence or at least reliable sources regarding that the virus accidentally escaped from a Wuhan laboratory. It would help if you list all of the ones that you have found. David A (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class COVID-19 articles
• Top-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• B-Class Chinese history articles
• High-importance Chinese history articles
• WikiProject Chinese history articles
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Top-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Top-importance medicine articles
• B-Class pulmonology articles
• Low-importance pulmonology articles
• Pulmonology task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class virus articles
• Top-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles