Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JDouglass23 (article contribs).
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
The image shown reports symptom percentages that are not supported by the linked source. This can be very misleading and should be removed. For example 83%+ for fever is not supported/contradicted by other sources such as the ECDC that reports 45.4% . Percentages should probably be avoided or corrected with more solid sourcing. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Pinging the author Mikael Häggström (talk · contribs). Could we fix this? Could you remove the percentages or base them on a more solid source? Maybe the EUCDC source reported above could serve as a solid basis. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there information on asymptomatic carriers? Jackieneumann (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Recently me and Gtoffoletto started a discussion at his talk page about a minor editing of the Wikipedia Symptoms of COVID-19 article I performed and the reference to the scientific journal supporting this editing. Gtoffoletto undid my minor editing, while I propose substantial arguments about its appropriateness. Over several rounds of the discussion it become clear we have very opposite points of view on this topic. I think we need the independent judgement to define whether my minor editing should be returned back, and make the current section at this talk page to know the opinion of other Wikipedia editors.
I proposed this editing based on several reasons:
Gtoffoletto undid the minor editing I've performed based on this manucript ((particularly this revision) and indicated "source is not WP:MEDRS compliant"), and continue to propose different arguments against it. It seems very strange that in every step of our discussion he propose somewhat different arguments. First he suggested that Wikipedia doesn't use peer-reviewed papers (primary sources) directly but try to only rely on reviews and other secondary or tertiary sources. When I indicated that the manuscript summarises 6 data sources and is not an original study with the primary data analysis, he proposed this reference does not qualify as a strong WP:MEDRS source because it is a letter to the editor. When I indicated that according to the journal information this manuscript has been peer-reviewed and even revised according to the reviewers' suggestions, and the same Wikipedia article contains a dozen of references representing short commentaries in the "News" section of scientific journals (for example the reference 8 with the doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03141-3), he proposed to me to edit the existing Wikipedia article and remove from it other references and data supported by not-meta-analyses and not-guidelines publications.
I have no idea why, but it seems he is trying to apply different rules to the same type of evidence: keep one not-meta-analyses and remove another not-meta-analyses, and he has no discomfort that other not-meta-analyses used as references at this page but persisting each time with new arguments that the not-meta-analysis reference I proposed sould be abandoned. I think it is not appropriate to apply such double-truth logic.
As a summary, taking into account the emerging nature of the topic and the reliable data source from high-impact scientific journal, I believe it is fine to add this important information to the Wikipedia article supported by the given reference. Because Gtoffoletto and me could not achieve agreement, I am asking other Wikipedia editors to define whether my minor editing supported by the reference form the scentific journal should be returned back. Thanks in advance for helping to resolve this issue.Borisbikbov (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field.I think this would be the most likely way to include this currently; presenting the 14-day as the consensus, with this manuscript as the dissenting view. The second, less serious concern, is that half of the studies cited in your manuscript are preprints. A secondary source made of unreviewed secondary sources doesn't make those unreviewed studies acceptable, so your manuscript would be of better use on Wikipedia if it referred only to the reviewed studies. On a quick look at the three peer reviewed sources, I'm not entirely convinced of their veracity (for instance, figure S2 here has a significant range of uncertainty, and the paper itself only uses that to estimate 95% of infected develop symptoms in 14 days). Not necessarily a deal breaker, it's just not clear cut and easy to argue for inclusion as a slam dunk source. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
We state that "Fever is the most common symptom of COVID-19.[2] The fever may be high or low. Most people with COVID-19 develop a fever at some point.[2]" The source is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310678 which is based on studies made in April of 2020. It states that We confirm that fever and cough are the most prevalent symptoms of adults infected by SARS-CoV-2. However, there is a large proportion of infected adults which symptoms-alone do not identify.
and The most prevalent symptoms were fever (78% [95% CI 75%-81%]; 138 studies, 21,701 patients; I2 94%)
however the ECDC source in the article reports a much lower incidence of fever and states that 2 out of 3 identified "clusters of patients" do not develop fever at all. I will edit the article to make it less misleading. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this a correct use of terminology? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the introduction includes this sentence:
These asymptomatic carriers tend not to get tested and can spread the disease.
This has two problems in my view. First, the claim of “tend not to get tested” is not supported in the statement. I believe it is probably true but wouldn’t we want a cite before making a claim like this?
Second, the construction of the sentence suggests that only asymptomatic carriers spread the disease or that they have a higher transmission rate than symptomatic carriers which is not true on its face — it’s only true if the symptomatic carrier takes measures to prevent spread (e.g. quarantining), something that is known to not always occur.
Some of the figures cited in the systemic symptoms section date to research published in June 2020. If I recall correctly most research that early only accounted for Chinese cases, which, if correct, would mean that we are using information on symptoms that is biased towards the Chinese case on the early months. Let's find a more recent reference which accounts for cases in United States, UK, Italy, as well as China. Forich (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcollins4 (article contribs).
I added more information to the "Longer-term effects" section of this article. I provided a definition for long COVID, long-term symptoms, and potential treatment options.
— Assignment last updated by Mcollins4 (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The structure of this section seems off. It seems to be repeating the same information just spaced out to make the section look longer. A specific example that had weird phrasing is the first sentence. "Other symptoms are less common among people with COVID-19." I feel as though this could combined with the next sentence and it would flow a lot easier. Mcollins4 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The main references used for this subsection are all from 2020. I propose we replace all Aygnes et al (2020) references for more updated reviews. Forich (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.