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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
viruses on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article.
Omer Benjakob (February 9, 2020).
"On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation".
Wired (magazine). Retrieved February 9, 2020. While a short and generic Wikipedia page on "coronavirus" had existed since 2013, the article about the "2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak" was created on January 5, 2020. Four days later, a new article was spun off from it, dedicated solely to the "Novel coronavirus" – officially known as 2019-nCoV. Yet another was created in February to detail the symptoms of the respiratory disease caused by the virus.
Noam Cohen (15 February 2020).
"How Wikipedia Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation".
Wired. Retrieved 15 February 2020. His point, and it's really indisputable, is that this mammoth online project has developed a personality, a purpose, a soul. Now, as the new coronavirus outbreak plays out across its many pages, we can see that Wikipedia has also developed a conscience.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in
2020, when it received 21,672,589 views.
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.
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
Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) 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.
As written, this either excludes
lesser apes or else includes great apes twice over (cf the opening paragraph of
monkey), which is odd either way. What the ref actually says is
The findings on ferrets, orangutans, and monkeys showed a higher affinity of ACE2 with the RBD domain of SARS-CoV-2 S protein
[1].
That citation in turn says the following:
2019-nCoV RBD likely recognizes ACE2 from pigs, ferrets, cats, orangutans, monkeys, and humans with similar efficiencies, because these ACE2 molecules are identical or similar in the critical virus-binding residues.
[...]
Pigs, ferrets, cats, and nonhuman primates contain largely favorable 2019-nCoV-contacting residues in their ACE2 and hence may serve as animal models or intermediate hosts for 2019-nCoV.
However, the previous paragraph of
§ Other species disagrees about pigs in particular:
The virus does not appear to be able to infect
pigs,
ducks, or chickens at all.[2]
Again ref plus secondary citation:
However, Shi et al. reported that ferrets and cats were highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, while dogs had a low susceptibility and livestock including pigs, chickens, and ducks were not susceptible to the virus, under experimental conditions
[2].
->
Dogs appeared not to support viral replication well and had low susceptibility to the virus, and pigs, chickens, and ducks were not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2.
[...]
We found that SARS-CoV-2 replicates poorly in dogs, pigs, chickens, and ducks, but ferrets and cats are permissive to infection.
[...]
We also investigated the susceptibility of pigs, chickens, and ducks to SARS-CoV-2 by using the same strategy as that used to assess dogs. However, viral RNA was not detected in any swabs collected from these virus-inoculated animals or from naïve contact animals (Table 1). In addition, all of these animals were seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 when tested by ELISA with sera collected on day 14 p.i. (Table 1). These results indicate that pigs, chickens, and ducks are not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2.
In summary, we found that ferrets and cats are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2; dogs have low susceptibility; and pigs, chickens, and ducks are not susceptible to the virus.
Generally, translating some of the refs' protein-level results into organism-level claims like "can be infected" seems suspect.
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library has a partnership with
Wiley (publisher) to get access to many of their textbooks and journals, including some medical school textbooks, at no charge to editors. If you are looking for good sources, please consider this one:
Eligible editors will need to login at
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. Under "My Collections", almost at the end of the page, find the box for Wiley. Click on the blue "Access collection" button. That will take you to the Wiley search page.
Put the title of the book into the main search box. The default search result is "Articles & Chapters", but you want the "Publications" tab. Click on the search result for the book, and then decide whether you want to download the whole book at once (huge file) or to pick and choose individual chapters instead (e.g., "COVID-19: Presentation and Symptomatology (Pages: 125-148)" or "Mental Health Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Professionals (Pages: 554-579)").
None of those sources establish that antihistamines prevent COVID-19. There are statements like we believe that antihistamines may have played a role as a preventive drug for COVID-19 which should be studied & Clinical trials will be necessary to establish the drugs’ effectiveness in prevention, early treatment and as a secondary therapy for severe COVID-19.
A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to
combine results of several studies. Examples include
literature reviews or
systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.
A tertiary source summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate- or graduate-level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources.
Thus, none of the sources that you posted qualify for this article. If you do find a source that supports these criteria, please feel free to circle back & post it.
Peaceray (
talk)
17:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Secondary sources ...
"should be approved for emergency use towards Covid‐19 management at the moment"
Covid‐19 Histamine theory: Why antihistamines should be incorporated as the basic component in Covid‐19 management?