Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 23 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 General Superseded by TfD October 2020 and later practice - consult regular {{Current}} guidance.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 was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of February 23 to 29, 2020, March 1 to 7, 2020, March 8 to 14, 2020, March 15 to 21, 2020, March 22 to 28, 2020, March 29 to April 4, 2020, April 5 to 11, 2020, and the week of April 12 to 18, 2020, according to the Top 25 Report. 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)

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://project-evidence.github.io/
2. 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)

Did you know that the Wuhan lab was transfecting HIV-1 derived plasmids into HEK cells in their SLCoV experiments in a BSL2 lab? This changes everything. Details:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3766462; The Indian HIV-insert paper was railroaded in a hurry before this discussion even came up. Why are scientists not even willing to discuss this? Vinucube (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Forich, "|f a topic is prone to misinterpretation", we have one and only one acceptable way to handle it, which is to give the various interpretations, in contrast to only the interpretation the majority of us think correct. If responsible sources indicate that only one particular view is scientifically respectable, then we have the responsibility to indicate this. It does not mean we have the right to hide the others. As others have pointed out, this is a political as well as a medical question. FALSE Balance does not mean we hide it, but that we give it limited coverage as compared to other views. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 23 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)

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.

I quoted the following text 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." Your objection to including this was “The WSJ is probably not a WP:MEDRS.” Isn’t this a statement that the Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source with respect to whether or not American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory?

If you think that this involves righting great wrongs, then sadly I can't help you.

The righting great wrongs section says that an editor has to “wait until it's been reported in mainstream media.” Well, the fact that American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory has been reported in the mainstream media, as was amply demonstrated. — Swood100 (talk) 20:18, 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)

This talk page discussion is insanely long (even the summary, which I can't know whether to rely on since it comes from an involved participant; I appreciate the attempt, though), and it's about an important enough topic that I'd say yeah, go ahead with an RfC. Maybe have some brief/concise as possible discussion here to make sure folks agree on the wording, then launch it in a new section so that this one can be archived to help clean up this talk page. You can each say what you think has happened in this discussion in your !votes.

For a candidate text, I would think we would also want to consider something as short as There has been speculation that the virus may have been accidentally leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but no solid evidence for this has been shared. Not saying that that's what I would support necessarily, but just that something like it should be on the menu of options. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A reasonable question could be "Should there be a sentence about conspiracy theories that the virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology?" I have no definitive idea for a sentence, but if it is included it should include that the theory has been rejected (if that's too strong a wording: "deemed unlikely") by scientific sources. In any case, it should not exceed a single sentence. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC) edit: slightly reworded suggestion 20:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: 3er MEDRS to mention the hypothesis, p. 7 of this article. My portuguese is not good enough to translate the appropiate passages. If a volunteer can please translate, it would be appreciated. Forich (talk) 04:58, 22 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)

The issue at this point is not whether or not the virus actually accidentally escaped from a Wuhan lab. It has been reported by reliable sources that American intelligence agencies are assessing whether the virus might have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan. These are serious agencies. That they are assessing this matter deserves to be reported. 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 is not a kook. — Swood100 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please not another level-2 section on this. The question of origin is being discussed above. This section is just going to be a spillover of that. Regarding the maintenance template, I did this before I saw this, but I think my edit stands. I'm also going to move this section to be a subsection of the question of origin discussion if that's alright; the only new level-2 section that should be opened on this is one for a well-structured RfC. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that your dispute template is misplaced. I am not aware of any credible evidence suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin. This would be the theory that it was artificially created, and all experts say that that would be detectable. The controversy concerns whether the lab was experimenting with a virus from a bat that they captured in the wild, and it was accidentally released. U.S. intelligence agencies acknowledge that they are actively investigating this theory. The dispute is over the refusal to include any mention that this theory is being actively considered by serious agencies. I edited the sentence to add: "without any human involvement" which I think is the assertion that is disputed. — Swood100 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn’t come up with any appropriate text for that sentence. Even if there is a scientific consensus a minority position deserves to be mentioned. But the issue is not exclusively a scientific one. That the intelligence agencies are investigating a theory is not an issue to which scientific consensus is relevant. — Swood100 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that this is not merely a "minority position deserves to be mentioned"; it is a fringe viewpoint held by only a tiny minority (which has no evidence to back it up and has been demmed explicitly against the overwhelming weight of evidence (c.f. Andersen et al. (2020), cited in Graham & Baric (2020), see the section #Continued discussion), and, per the other policy I mentioned, it "should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship". 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That the intelligence agencies are investigating the theory is not a fringe viewpoint, nor does it implicate a neutral point of view, since whether the agencies are investigating is a fact, not a point of view. — Swood100 (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note The inline dispute tag was removed by Doc James, which seems appropriate given how the RfC below is going. {{u|Sdkb}}  22:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes we have had this massive discussion. Yes their is a political effort to put forwards alternative theories but they are not supported by major medical / scientific organizations and appear to be simple political posturing. Ie these are fringe views. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

First second third and fourth sentences of second paragraph

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)

It seems like we are leaning towards including a section about this so far. David A (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

All we have are a few popular press peices. Not convinced it belongs here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Popular press is just fine as a source. Der Spiegel is a top shelf source and the other lower quality press such as newsweek following it makes it DUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Spiegel says "According to the Federal Intelligence Service BND, China has urged the World Health Organization (WHO) to delay a global warning after the outbreak of the virus at the highest level. On January 21, China's head of state Xi Jinping during a phone call with WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus asked to withhold information about a person-to-person transmission and to postpone a pandemic warning."

NYPost says "“Dr. Tedros and President Xi did not speak on January 21 and they have never spoken by phone. Such inaccurate reports distract and detract from WHO’s and the world’s efforts to end the COVID-19 pandemic,” the statement read. The WHO continued to say China confirmed human-to-human transmission to the UN health agency on Jan. 20 and the WHO “publicly declared” two days later that “data collected … suggests that human-to-human transmission is taking place in Wuhan.”"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Here we have a piece published Jan 21st 2020 talking about person-to-person transmission in China which was on CCTV.

That it being called a pandemic was delayed to March 11th, yes that should have happened sooner. But calling it a pandemic is not based on China, but on WHO making the call in other regions of the world. A pandemic requires multiple continents to be involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of things worth noting:

1. The BND has not made any official statement about China supposedly pressuring the WHO. Where Der Spiegel got this accusation from is unclear, and the BND has refused to comment on it to other news agencies. The accusation does not make much sense, since China confirmed human-to-human transmission on 20 January.
2. The word "pandemic" does not have much actual significance, and the WHO using the term does not trigger any major shift in policy. The important phrase is "Public Health Emergency of International Concern" (PHEIC). A formal declaration of a PHEIC does have real legal consequences. The WHO was annoyed by journalists constantly asking about the word "pandemic": .

-Thucydides411 (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not include yet, and if ends up being included, do not present as fact. There is a risk of misinformation (could be at Der Spiegel, could be at the German intelligence service for all we know) at this time and media reporting will be biased towards more controversy. Misplaced Pages should avoid putting in something this big if it's controversial and potentially can be misinformation. We wouldn't want this to be in the article and then in February 2021 when everything's cooled down Der Spiegel publishes a retraction piece after they found out that their intel source wasn't truthful. Juxlos (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not include. The very most basic allegations in the article are contradicted by well known facts published by numerous newspapers around the world. Furthermore the allegations are based upon secret evidence that none of us have access to. It would be pretty irresponsible to give this credence. -Darouet (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Include the information - that information being the BND accusation and China/the WHO's denial. It is well sourced and has been covered by a myriad of highly circulated sources: Der Spiegel (found reliable by the community at WP:RS/P), Indian Express, Asia Times, Daily Telegraph, The Week, Global Times (a Chinese publication even), Associated Press (found reliable by the community at WP:RS/P), Times of India, The Telegraph (found reliable by the community at WP:RS/P), NZ Herald (the most circulated newspaper in New Zealand), and the WHO itself. We shouldn't present the BND/CIA intel as certain, factual, nor definitive, but we should cover that they made the claim and that the WHO/China refuted it. Us doing that does not give the claim "credence", it merely ensures that we present a well sourced dispute to our readers in an article it holds relevance to. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Include the information - Same arguments as Coffee. We can't say if it is misinformation now, but it is indeed a rapidly evolving subject. We can't wait for the pandemic to be completely over to relay information with tons of references just on the assumption that it might be disinformation. I think that under WP:AGF we should include it and remove it or rephrase it when it the information is confirmed or denied. We should include a sentence that states it is not confirmed information however. I won't be participating in the editing process of this page because this is a hard topic and I am too new to wikipedia to be fully aware of all the rules and I've already made some mistakes about it. I think that we are close to have reached a concensus with 4+ and 2-. I suggest someone edits the page according to this result. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, I do not see a consensus in either direction (even though I fully think we should include such highly notable accusations/denials). In time a consensus may emerge (I certainly hope so), but that time has not come yet. You're new here, so I don't expect you to understand the lengthy discussions these types of disputes normally result in on our site... I would just advise you to be patient and wait to see what other participants have to say. Cheers, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: Thanks, that's what has been happening here, as I stated in the other talk page. I still need to learn about the concensus process XD sorry everyone. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not include: This claim is ultimately sourced back to Der Spiegel alone, relying in some way on the Bundesnachrichtendienst. How Der Spiegel got this information is unclear, because Der Spiegel doesn't say. There's no public statement from the BND, let alone evidence. The claim itself - that China would pressure the WHO to not reveal information that China itself had already publicized - doesn't make any sense. This is something that should be confirmed by independent reporting (not other papers citing Der Spiegel) before inclusion. If it were to be included, it would have to be attributed to Der Spiegel and the BND (though how exactly to attribute it to the BND is tricky, because there's no statement by the BND, and we have no idea whether this is an official determination of the BND, something someone in the BND told a Spiegel reporter, etc.), and the context would have to be made clear (China announced human-to-human transmission before this occurred, and the WHO announced it the day after). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Let's dissect their statement. "According to the BND, China has urged the World Health Organization (WHO) to delay a global warning after the outbreak of the virus at the highest level. On January 21, China's leader Xi Jinping asked WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to hold back information about a human-to-human transmission and to delay a pandemic warning.". If we compare it to parts added to the WIV: "On 30 April 2020, Trump claimed to have evidence of the lab theory, but offered no further details. In a news conference, Trump stated he had seen classified evidence that gave him "a high degree of confidence" that the virus originated at the WIV. Similarly, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed on 3 May that there is "enormous evidence" the coronavirus outbreak originated in a Chinese laboratory.". Tell me how is there any difference between the statements made by Trump and those made by Der Spiegel. I know that Trump is the POTUS, but there wasn't any references whatsoever to the information itself. Yet, it seems like a consensus was reached on the WIV page. Or, in this instance: "Tedros stated he received death threats and racist remarks that he attributed to Taiwan with complicity from its Foreign Ministry". This is unverifiable accusations that he made, that the Taiwanese government later rejected as false: "“Without having checked the facts, Tedros’s unprovoked and untrue accusations not only differ from reality, they have also seriously harmed our government and our people,”. Still, someone quickly included in his page the unverified statement he made, on the same day in fact, and Taiwan's response was added nearly two days later. These are the statements he made, I agree, but they are unverifiable. We can include Der Spiegel unverified statements in the same category as the ones made by Tedros, which had a great impact on Taiwan's reputation. I'd say that the reputation impacts here are similar. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Do not include, do not present as fact per WP:ATTRIBUTION, per Thucydides411 above. The timeline does not add up, no matter what the Der Spiegel may state to the contrary. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: If I may cite WP:ATTRIBUTION: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." I think we've got it guys, we need to include it. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tedros Adhanom

There's a discussion of this issue also at the Bio for Tedros Adhanom, here . -Darouet (talk) 19:52, 21 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 reflect 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)

Why is "CFR range (0.82% to 9.64%)" not useful? This is an accurate reflection of how different countries count cases differently, count deaths differently, have different testing capabilities, etc. It shows that our understanding of how deadly this disease is leaves a lot to still be determined. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My concern with CEBM's global IFR estimate, and specifically its lower bound (0.1%) is that it appears impossible given current data. New York State has a population of 19.45 million and has seen 28,600 deaths. New York City has a population of 8.4 million and has seen 15,700 deaths (20,000+ according including probable deaths). In two months, the cause-specific mortality rate would be 0.15% and 0.19% respectively (using the more conservative state estimates). For the disease to have an IFR of 0.1%, it would mean that 150% of the state and 190% of the city's population has been infected. The concern with CEBM's CFR estimate of 0.82-9.64% is that it's too broad to be useful. Any Wikipedian can grab the highest and lowest local D/C ratio and present the range to readers. In contrast, I'd expect CEBM to do the math to calculate an actual estimate. I'd be happy to be wrong but the lower bound of the global estimate appears impossible given current data. I'll try to dig up some more recent professional estimates later this week. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I also consider CEBM's lower bound on IFR to be exceedingly unlikely. With respect to the CFR being wide that simple reflects how poor our data is / how variable the world is. Would round it but still useful. It is perfectly reasonable for Misplaced Pages to reflect the fact that precise numbers are not always know and provide less precise ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This makes sense. Happy to leave the numbers as they are. Regarding the IFR, the best estimate I've found is in the following preprint meta-analysis of 13 IFR estimates. Not going to include because it's preprint and we've seen plenty of really bad coronavirus preprints recently but worth a read for those interested...

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates

Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until the end of April, 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.75% (0.49-1.01%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents the "true" point estimate. It is likely that different places will experience different IFRs. More research looking at age-stratified IFR is urgently needed to inform policy-making on this front.

- Wikmoz (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving working?

It looks like the archiving function may have broken again? Not fully sure, but nothing's been moved since the 17th. If there's any way to get the archive bot running more frequently so that discussions go away as soon as they hit the 36h mark, rather than waiting for the next daily run or whatnot, we should do that. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I assume manual archiving is not an option? I mean, I just tried it with one discussion and I see no issue with it. It's not ideal but if we must... Unless it messes with the bot? RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 03:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Manual archiving is always available, but it's a band-aid fix over a bleeding wound if there's something wrong with the automatic archiving, which a talk page as active as this depends on. I'm not 100% sure there is a problem, though, but it'll become very clear very soon if there is. {{u|Sdkb}}  03:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, there's definitely a failure happening here. Lowercase sigmabot just tried this mostly null edit, with summary Archive failure: ceterach.exceptions.EditError: 'spamblacklist': CeterachError('Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Misplaced Pages\'s blacklist. * \'\'\'To save your changes now\'\'\', you must go back and \'\'remove the blocked link\'\' (shown below), and then save. **Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. \'\'\'goo.gl\'\'\', \'\'\'t.co\'\'\', \'\'\'youtu.be\'\'\', \'\.... Pinging Σ, any idea what's going on? Also pinging Tenryuu, in case this is also what's affecting the Teahouse. {{u|Sdkb}}  09:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It means that of the threads that are eligible for archiving, one of them contains a blacklisted external link. Edits containing such links cannot be saved. This begs the question: how did it get saved on this page in the first place? The answer to that is because it was added to the blacklist after being added here. This edit should allow it through on the next bot run. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

As to the Teahouse thing - it can't be the same kind of issue because Nick Moyes (talk · contribs) was permitted to make this edit. If it had contained blacklisted URLs, no save would have been possible - not even for an admin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

So, apologies, I was the source of the "problem" (but not for the reasons we thought). Lesson next time I report a link for the blacklist: remove it too... @JzG: suggested "we can move it to an edit filter if anyone feels strongly about it"; but obviously this problem here appears to have been solved. I manually archived the offending thread to make sure it poses no further problems (not that it should). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 13:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, hold on a minute. Does the bot check only the content it archives and not the whole page? Let's say there was a section made on May 14 with a blacklisted external link. Would all sections after that one be prevented from being archived as the bot would constantly scan all sections that meet archiving criteria and refuse to archive any of them because it constantly catches the blacklisted link? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The bot doesn't check anything, the check is done by the MediaWiki parser. The bot selects threads that are eligible for archiving, opens both pages for editing, copies those threads from the source, pastes them into the destination, then sends a "save" request for the destination (just like clicking Publish changes). At that point the MediaWiki software checks to see if it's a valid edit; amongst these checks is the spam blacklist; and if a check fails, the save is rejected with an error message. The bot, upon receipt of the error message, abandons the rest of the process - otherwise, it cuts the archived threads from the source page and saves that.

You can see the error message for yourself by taking the URL that I modified here, pasting it into an edit window, prefixing it with https:// and going for Publish changes; essentially it's this one plus this one with the $1 replaced by whatreallymakesyouill.com, all prefixed with "Error:" and enclosed in a pink box. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the bot did a proper run earlier, so hopefully all is good now. {{u|Sdkb}}  09:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Resolved I also just noticed that the bot archived 40 discussions at the U.S. page, some of which were quite old, so something was clearly broken that's now been fixed. Σ, whatever you or someone else did to fix what was happening, thanks! {{u|Sdkb}}  06:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of lab-accident theory

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the theory about the accidental leakage of Covid-19 from a Wuhan laboratory be mentioned in the article? Forich (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• IMHO, no per WP:FRINGE. It was discussed at length previously and there seemed to be general consensus on the issue. This article came up. I think the key point is that given that there's absolutely zero actual evidence it leaked from a lab, given the mind-bogglingly huge prevalence of diverse strains of coronaviruses in bats, and given the simple reality of zoonotic spillover risk given China's wildlife trade/markets, even the very idea that it came from a lab is just pointless. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

More recent article here. AFAIK, zero evidence, zero reason to believe it. Just pure speculation at this point that seems needless given the realities I pointed out above. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:FRINGE. There is no evidence supporting the lab accident theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The only WP:MEDRS which discusses this speculative theory find "that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence". As such, mentioning it would be undue.Note: I participated in the previous discussion on this subject so instead of repeating myself once again I'll keep this intentionally brief. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose If we do list this conspiracy theory which was cited by several US government figures, we should also list the conspiracy that was cited by several Chinese government figures. We should treat BOTH of these superpowers' words with scepticism, not just China's. JMonkey2006 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support If the theory that the virus was accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan is being seriously investigated by intelligence services and it has been reported by several reliable news outlets, we should preferably mention it, and not consider it as a mere conspiracy theory. David A (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Politically-motivated narratives about the virus origin are completely divorced from hypotheses developed by scientists reporting in WP:MEDRS. JoelleJay (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose goes in the misinformation article per WP:FRINGE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Three reasons: i) The lab-accident theory does not fit the definition of fringe: "to depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", because the mainstream view is that the starting place of the outbreak is a mistery, it is unknown; since there are no leading clues backed by hard evidence of the place where the outbreak start, speculations that it emerged at the laboratory are not large deviations from the mainstream; ii) The theory has been directly mentioned in MEDRS and RS; iii) The theory should not be viewed as a push to criticize the chinese government, as some editors have suggested. We can easily word the mention carefully to avoid those kind of concerns.Forich (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You mention MEDRS sources. Which ones are those? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: See the one I gave above. While it is a direct mention; it's also a very clear rejection... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

See . The last one is a preprint that may not make it through peer review, but seems better substantiated than most news RS on the subject.Forich (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The first two sources were covered in the previous discussion. I think I recently saw a discussion which expressly resulted in a consensus to forbid preprints so no comment on that last one (can't remember the exact link). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The first source say "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 "

We say "The scientific consensus is that COVID-19 has a natural origin." I am not sure we need to say more in this article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@107.190.33.254: I believe you are referrring to this rule Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019#Discretionary_sanctions_on_the_use_of_preprints, recently enforced at the disease entry. It says it is page-specific, so I think it does not apply to other related pages.Forich (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why a preprint would be anymore valid here than there... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Preprints are not suitable anywhere as they are not reliable sources. Sure exceptions can be made but those must gain consensus before hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a conspiracy theory, and we should not be covering it in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory posits that "some small and hidden group" has manipulated events, or the existence of secretive coalitions of individuals and speculation as to their alleged activities. If the theory under consideration is that a virus was accidentally released from a Wuhan lab could you clarify who the small and hidden group is and what events were supposedly manipulated? — Swood100 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is a theory that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth or something. In this case, the "conspiracy" would be that the Chinese govt. is hiding the alleged escape of the coronavirus from the WIV, a claim which is so far totally unsubstantiated, rejected by MEDRS, and which smells more like a politically motivated non-sense (from a government whose head said "I don't take responsibility at all" and is "playing a deadly game") than anything else... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Maybe this was a fringe theory to start with, but it certainly isn't any longer. Should a reader wish to find out about the leak suggestion, to where will he go? This article is the natural place, but at the moment he'll find nothing. As to the matter already having been debated; that's no longer relevant, given the pace of change. Arcturus (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The link to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead suffices. William Avery (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Since it is a very controversary topic, it should be mentioned. However, it should emphasize the conspiracy theory since there is only a minor probability. All scientific facts oppose this claim, although none of them can deny it by 100 % - but it's feels much more as an election manoeuvre, both the Trump version, as the Chinese conspiracy propaganda. --Traut (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that "there's enormous evidence that that's where this began" is not a fringe theory. It is a fact that he made that statement. The statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that it is investigating whether the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a laboratory accident in Wuhan is not a fringe theory. It is a factual report of current government activity. What is the WP:NPOV principle that requires these actions to be excluded from a factual recounting of the events surrounding the pandemic? The theory of accidental release from a Wuhan lab is said to be a fringe theory because there is no publicly available evidence to support it. But the U.S. Secretary of State says that there is "enormous evidence." What is the WP:NPOV principle that requires Misplaced Pages to treat such a statement by the Secretary of State as false unless he makes all the evidence public? — Swood100 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Global Cerebral Ischemia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose without any publicly available WP:MEDRS-compliant sources giving any credence to this. Misplaced Pages reflects published sources, and Mike Pompeo is not a MEDRS-compliant source. I would note that I was brought here by this post, which appears not to be neutral as it says that there is nothing resembling a consensus at this discussion. I see a very strong resemblence to a consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is a stand-alone article on misinformation and misinformation should go there. This article is already gigantic, and specialized information to go into specialized spin offs, not on the main. GMG 15:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Discussion of the origins of the pandemic should be based on WP:MEDRS sources. If this is to be mentioned at all in the article, it should only be in the context of discussing misinformation. But as for now, most discussion of misinformation is split off into a separate article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: as per Thucydides411.Whispyhistory (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Graham, Rachel L.; Baric, Ralph S. (May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2: Combating Coronavirus Emergence". Immunity. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.016.
2. Ruiz-Bravo, Alfonso; Jimenez-Valera, Maria (June 2020). "SARS-CoV-2 y pandemia de síndrome respiratorio agudo (COVID-19)" (PDF). Ars Pharmaceutica. 61 (2): 68. doi:10.30827/ars.v61i2.15177. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
3. Zhan, Shing; Deverman, Benjamin; Chan, Yujia (May 2020). "SARS-CoV-2 is well-adapted for humans. What does this means for re-emergence" (PDF). biorXiv preprint. 1: 9. doi:10.1101/2020.05.01.073262. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
4. Oprysko, Caitlin. "'I don't take responsibility at all': Trump deflects blame for coronavirus testing fumble". POLITICO.
5. "Trump is playing a deadly game in deflecting Covid-19 blame to China". the Guardian. 19 April 2020.
6. Basu, Zachary (3 May 2020). "Mike Pompeo says there's "enormous evidence" coronavirus originated in Wuhan lab". Axios. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
7. Knutson, Jacob (30 April 2020). "U.S. intelligence community: Coronavirus "was not manmade or genetically modified"". Axios. Retrieved 22 May 2020.

Discussion

In case you are not familiar with, I must point out there has been a lenghty previous discussion on the topic just higher up on this talk page. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who posted the Rfc I am going to end it, given that is evident that it received overwhelming opposition. I hereby ask for an editor other than me to provide a summary of the Rfc, possibly taking into account the discussion section as well, to determine what we have agreed on and try to implement our agreement.Forich (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect boundaries and shading on World map of confirmed cases per capita for Nunavut, Canada

The article is way too big

I think the following sections should be merged:

• The "National responses" subsections into a single "National responses" section
• The "International responses" subsections into a single "International responses" section
• The "Impact" subsections into a single "Impact" section

--RaphaelQS (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that some parts of the international responses section are too long, although I think some subsectioning is still needed. I added {{Very long section}} tags in two spots, though. I disagree about the national responses and impact sections; those are important topics that need to be covered here and have been heavily edited to be as concise as possible. Perhaps there could be a little more shift from covering individual countries to covering continents, but that'll need to be done carefully. {{u|Sdkb}}  09:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A few sections could be shortened but this is a fairly major topic so we expect it to be fairly big. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Mention of misinformation in the lead

At the moment there is a statement in the lead describing how social media has spread misinformation about the virus. I amended this to include mention of the mainstream media, which is IMHO equally to blame. Here's a classic example from The Telegraph . The source backs up the assertion that the MSM are culpable. Mention of the MSM, or other news outlets has now been removed, but I'm not sure why. I propose to reinstate mention of the MSM regarding the spread of misinformation. Any thoughts? Thanks. Arcturus (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arcturus: I was the one who reverted, here (apologies I wasn't able to find your initial edit to give you a revert notification). My summary was Most misinformation has been spread online, and I don't think we have room to start listing every last way it's propagated. To expand a bit on that, I don't dispute at all that the mass media has been involved in spreading misinformation, but a lot of mass media is consumed online nowadays anyways. That said, I'm open to trying to find a better way to phrase things if you want to discuss a bit here. The main challenge is that we need to keep things really concise to avoid bloating the lead, so I don't think we'd have room to list out each of text messaging, social media, mass media, etc. {{u|Sdkb}}  19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC.

@Sdkb: No need to apologise, and thanks for replying. I agree, we do need to keep it concise, especially in an article such as this. Let me give it some thought and I'll come back here. Likewise, if you have an idea for a concise sentence that covers it, please suggest it. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Let us discuss better maps! Actual ones, for example.

First of all, I must confess that I do not know how to make maps and upload them to Misplaced Pages. So, if someone likes my suggestions, feel free to make them real! I love the (hidden) map of dead per million inhabitants, even with numbers, wow! Death count is much more significant than count of "confirmed cases", because of different testing strategies. But in the mentioned map, these are cumulative numbers! I suggest to build a map with actual death numbers, 7 days incidence is the best, because of weekend effects. --88.68.50.0 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Another idea is the weekly rise of total confirmed cases: To compare confirmed cases rates in different countries, is nonsense, but it is wise to compare the new numbers per week with the previously found, supposed that the country does not change its testing strategy radically. This way one can see, how well a country managed to stop the rise and control the pandemic. --88.68.50.0 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like maps are a bit over rated. What about a 3-D globe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.114.150 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! We recently had a long discussion about whether or not to switch to deaths rather than cases as the primary map, but it ended in no consensus (was just formally closed by an admin in the archive the other day). Regarding the weekly rise, I'd need to see an example of it to parse specifically what you mean, but we already have a bunch of charts in the cases/deaths sections, so discussion about a new one would need to be in the context of how it fits in with or replaces some of the current ones. Regarding a 3D globe, I'd be a somewhat wary, since it might make it harder to see the entire world at one time without having to click anything. It's an interesting thought, though. You might be interested in a broader discussion we're having about standardizing COVID-19 maps over here at the COVID-19 WikiProject. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}  06:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Countries have very different strategies for counting deaths aswell. So no deaths is not really any better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

CDC fatality rate estimates released

The CDC recently released their estimates of fatality rates for COVID-19 (finally!), but I was surprised to see these weren't listed in the article. I've added a sentence in the Deaths section regarding the column with their "current best estimates." The CDC estimates that the overall fatality rate among symptomatic cases is 0.4% and that an additional 35% of individuals are asymptomatic, giving an overall IFR of 0.26% (which nicely matches Oxford's CEBM estimate for an IFR of 0.1%-0.4%). This is being reported by major news outlets e.g. here and here. I mention it in the Talk because I know this is a sensitive issue for many editors, and I want to acknowledge that and preemptively make the case for why this information should be included. CDC is obviously WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes this ! Great source, let's use that . Symptomatic IFR : 0.4% (0.2%-1%) and 35% asymptomatic. @Doc James and RexxS:. Iluvalar (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

EDIT- FWIW, the best estimate varies dramatically according to age from as low as 0.05% in those under 49 to as high as 1.3% in those over 65. Maybe we should mention how the range differs by age? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The source says "Are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning. Are not predictions of the expected effects of COVID-19." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, they can't make "predictions" because they don't have a crystal ball, so what else could any published estimates be used for except for public health preparedness and planning since we're still in the middle of the pandemic? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Great find! Thanks a lot. Making this knowledge go public should help spread more proportionate responses to the pandemic across the world. David A (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Epidemics

Template:Epidemics is sitting at the bottom as a link instead of being transcluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.139.52 (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It happened because we ran up against the technical size limit for the article. I've commented out the template, and we can bring it back once we've gotten the size of the article back under control. {{u|Sdkb}}  06:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AutoEd

Is turning into an ongoing problem with edits like this. by User:Jeff G.

Once again it changed "</references></div> to <references /></div>". Is their a way to disable AutoEd on this page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Pardon me for my ignorance, but where is "</references>" documented as being correct wikitext syntax, and as being preferred on this project over standard legacy "<references />" syntax?   — Jeff G. ツ 12:45, 23 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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment