Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:
[[Talk:SARS-CoV-2#Current consensus|current consensus]] item [n]
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. (April 2020)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wuhan lab leak should be referenced. Data backs the lab leak theory and should be included 99.196.129.196 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for additional admin

Reading the talk threads, it seems to me that editor @Bon courage has disproportionate impact on this talk page. Other editors have commented on the tone used by @Bon courage when speaking to other editors as antagonistic. I agree. It's my suggestion that an additional admin who has not yet contributed would be more helpful for improving this article. The professionalism of @Bon courage, at least on this talk page, seems to be hampered by their ambiguous, unnecessary references to popular opinion, such as in comments like " The hot take on LL at the moment is that it was a ruse sold to the sheeple, and that those who have truly taken the red pill can see LL for the lie it is (as there was no virus)." This type of engagement would not be tolerated in less senior editors or admins, and suggests an abuse of privilege. There are minor editors here trying in earnest to inform the public's encyclopedic search for whether sars-cov-2 and similar viruses may have been tied to laboratory research, a subject which has been given better consideration in the wiki pages covering the earlier SARS outbreaks. We may not like the conclusions the public draws on the information presented, but, for example, if there is a source that can substantiate that any research on sars like viruses was being done on animal vectors in laboratories in Wuhan, that is relevant information and should be provided, if not here then in the pertinent articles. UserSwamp (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

if there is a source that can substantiate that any research on sars like viruses was being done on animal vectors in laboratories in Wuhan ← there is none (as reliable sources tell us). This is rather the point. Your arguments seems to be a complaint that evidence is being presented you don't like? Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage, I urge you not to make assumptions about fellow editors' intentions, please. All information is worth evaluating. I am not afraid of any information from any source, whether I previously agreed with any conclusions drawn, because I am confident in my reading comprehension and my own skepticism. This complaint is specifically about elitist tendencies masqueraded as impartiality that are rampant among veteran editors. My quote of yours above was to call attention to the fact that all editors, veteran or other wise, fall subject to letting their personal histories influence their speech to other editors and the way they interact with edits. Anyways, it might calm you down to hear me summarize my understanding of the origin. I believe reports that the wet market in wuhan was the primary location of spread of sars cov 2 in Wuhan. I believe the article published by the Wuhan researchers themselves that sars-cov-2 initially developed in wild bats. I also believe that article's following statement: "Simplot analysis showed that 2019-nCoV was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13 (Fig. 1c), with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%." I also believe the addendum to that article that states the Wuhan team did bring a field sampled virus, later confirmed to be RaTG13 , back to the Wuhan lab and published that data in 2016. Which means the Lab in Wuhan lab possessed highly related samples of sars viruses. I accept but find it not salient that RatG13 specifically is not sufficiently close enough to be implicated as an ancestor to Sars-cov-2. I do not know, and maybe never will know whether the line of transmission of Sars-cov-2 from wild bat to Wuhan wet market ever included a brief stay as a lab sample at a nearby virology lab. But to assert that encyclopedia readers are not to be trusted with the information that a lab analyzing closely related sars viruses could at some point have been involved with accidental escape is elitist at best. UserSwamp (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I never said anything about your "intentions". You say you "believe" many things but this is not a WP:NOTAFORUM so discussion of your personal beliefs is not appropriate. When treating such "beliefs" Wikipedia follows reliable sources like this which goes into detail about RaTG13 conspiracy theories, and has an actual virologist[1] as author. As is stated in the lableak article, "There is no evidence that any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, or a plausible ancestor virus, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic".Bon courage (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

When you said "Your arguments seems to be a complaint that evidence is being presented you don't like?", it seemed to me that you were assuming to know what evidence I intend to not like from the get go, i.e., you assume I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist. Please read my use of the phrase "I believe" in the sense of "to find credible." And in that regard, I was trying to show you that I find credible some of the same sources you do, like the ones I listed, and which are used as sources elsewhere in Wikipedia. This talk page is for us to come to a consensus on what language and sources we agree should be used, i.e., what we as a group agree is credible. Finally, yes, I concede that no sources conclude that an ancestor virus to Sars-cov-2 had been reported to have been in possession by the Wuhan lab, or any lab. As you notice, I have not even attempted to make edits on this actual article yet. At some point, what will become relevant in the future on some other Wikipedia article is whether any virology labs are harboring closely related viruses to Sars-cov-2 as well as the track record for lab accidents of those labs. UserSwamp (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

All information is worth evaluating Even misinformation? I suspect you need to read WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

Request to add Paper DOI:10.31579/2690-4861/328 as Source to the Caption of the File:Coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2.png, since it's only sourced with a russian news report from its creation. LukeTriton (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Why do you feel that is preferred? The image's provenance is well documented on its file page and the citation is an article from the creators of the original image – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Macaddct1984 True. The documentation is excellent, but as I'm not an expert, I found it challenging to verify whether the composed image was completely covered by it. After reading through the awarding discussion, I saw that the Russian outlet has a good reputation and that the image was verified by experts. That's great! However, I would have found it easier to trust it from the start, if i saw that it was published in an international journal, as I'm not familiar with Russian media. While the Russian source is preferable if you know the outlet, given its coverage of the creation, adding an international journal might help clarify its legitimacy for many people. LukeTriton (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a little unusual for an image caption to have a citation at all, but as it goes back to the original sourcing I'm inclined to keep it. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

Molnupiravir should be added to treatments section on December 23, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for molnupiravir for the treatment of adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of symptom onset, who are at high risk of progressing to severe disease, and for whom alternative antiviral therapies are not accessible or clinically appropriatehe.The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends using molnupiravir 800 mg orally (PO) twice daily for 5 days as an alternative therapy in nonhospitalized patients aged ≥18 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of disease progression when ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) and remdesivir are not available, feasible to use, or clinically appropriate Ferid9 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We need an RS to add information to an article. Also, this looks like a copyvio. Vgbyp (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Zoonotic?

In the article, it states "SARS-CoV-2 is of zoonotic origin". I'm not so sure about that. The fact it has a furin cleavage site is akin to finding a mollusk with an adaptive immune system. Furin cleavage site evolved in other lineages of coronavirus after the sarbecovirus split which occurred very early on. None of the hundreds or thousands of known sarbecovirus sampled from wild animals have furin cleavage site. At best, it is hypothesized SARS CoV 2 is zoonotic, but there is no proof of this being true. 172.98.158.87 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources, not the random musings of its editors. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It is of zoonotic origin, just like Granny Smith apples are derived from wild apple species through selective breeding. While the exact animal host of SARS-CoV-2 has not been definitively identified, the evidence suggests that the virus likely originated in animals before transmitting to humans, though evidence for this has yet to be found or disclosed. This uncertainty needs to be better spelled out in our article. Perhaps something like "SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin". 180.249.187.157 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

See response above. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Even if a lab worker inserted the furin cleavage site into some coronavirus in a lab in Wuhan as part of Project Defuse, the original virus would have to be some bat virus from the wild thousands of miles from Wuhan. Therefore, regardless if a lab worker augmented it, SARS CoV 2 ultimately derives from a natural animal virus, and therefore is zoonotic in origin. 66.22.165.211 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article based on reliable sources. Your own thoughts about the matter have no place here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

That is true, but "zoonotic in origin" may also be taken to mean it was natural spillover of a zoonotic virus, which is still uncertain according to the WHO and most scientists, which is also why we have an article on Covid lab leak theory. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

No need to mention fringe stuff here though. Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus that it is conspiracy theory or fringe. The WHO is the principle reference on the origin of the virus and their last statement on the issue was that they are still waiting on China to clarify [2] [3] [4]. We can't express certainty where the WHO doesn't. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This has already been discussed ad nauseam here and it's not going to be happening. I suggest you move on. Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like an RFC can help establish consensus. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Spillover does not necessary have to happen at a market. Even if it was an accidental lab leak, which quite often happens, it would still be considered a spillover. As long as it is a wild animal virus jumping into humans, regardless of where it happens, be it in a market or in a lab, it is considered a spillover event. 45.74.78.18 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

rename to Betacoronavirus pandemicum 2?

Considering Latin is the language of science and SARS related coronavirus (abbreviated SARS CoV) was given the formal binomial name Betacoronavirus pandemicum in 2023 which took effect in 2025, should SARS related coronavirus 2 (abbreviated SARS CoV 2) be renamed Betacoronavirus pandemicum 2 (abbreviated BCoVP 2)?

Source: [5]https://www.science.org/content/article/silly-and-pompous-official-new-names-viruses-rile-researchers

45.74.78.18 (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

No, see WP:COMMONNAME. Bon courage (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

SARS is a rare disease that went extinct in 2004. It's not relevant to today's parlance. The species of this virus was given the name Betacoronavirus pandemicum in 2023. This makes the SARS moniker no longer appropriate, considering it is considered offensive to Chinese people. Therefore, the original coronavirus that caused the 2019 pandemic should be named BCoV-pdm-2019, similar to how the swine flu virus that caused the 2009 pandemic is named H1N1pdm09. BCoV-pdm-2019 is suitable for a virus name for any language, not only for English speakers, considering it is named after the species name which is in Latin which is an extinct language and is therefore acceptable to scientists of all nations. 162.221.121.253 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Then you should convince the scientific community to primarily use that name. Wikipedia will follow. You are starting from the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

SARS-CoV-2 is not a scientifically sound name

Even if the species is named SARS-CoV after the original 2002 virus, SARS-CoV-2 is still not a scientifically sound name. While SARS-CoV-1 is the first strain identified in 2002, there have been many strains of SARS-CoV identified between 2002 and December 2019. Some of those include RaTG13, RmYN02 etc. SARS-CoV-2, first identified in December 2019, is definitely NOT the second strain of SARS-CoV to be identified. Hence, it is scientifically unsound as a name for the December 2019 strain. A better name could be HCoV-19, which is an early name used for this strain (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7231470/). Considering its reservoir is humans, and it was identified in 2019, HCoV-19 is a more scientifically sound name for this strain than SARS-CoV-2. 45.74.78.23 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not the venue to argue for a name change. Try emailing WHO EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)