Talk:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Material from 2019–20 Wuhan 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 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.
|
 | 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. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 |
|
January 3
editThis should be added: China's National Health Commission (NHC), the nation's top health authority, ordered institutions not to publish any information related to the unknown disease, and ordered labs to transfer any samples they had to designated testing institutions, or to destroy them. The order did not specify any designated testing institutions.[1]
References
- ^ Yu, Gao; Yanfeng, Peng; Rui, Yang; Yuding, Feng; Danmeng, Ma; Murphy, Flynn; Wei, Han; Shen, Timmy (February 28, 2020). "How early signs of the coronavirus were spotted, spread and throttled in China". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. Archived from the original on April 24, 2020. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
Then on Jan 3, China's National Health Commission (NHC), the nation's top health authority, ordered institutions not to publish any information related to the unknown disease, and ordered labs to transfer any samples they had to designated testing institutions, or to destroy them. The order, which Caixin has seen, did not specify any designated testing institutions.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 5 January section, please add at least a sentence about WHO's Disease Outbreak News describing the Wuhan cluster to the global media for the first time. WHO's own timeline highlights the publication as follows: "WHO issued its first Disease Outbreak News report. This is a public, web-based platform for the publication of technical information addressed to the scientific and public health communities, as well as global media. The report contained information about the number of cases and their clinical status; details about the Wuhan national authority's response measures; and WHO's risk assessment and advice on public health measures. It advised that 'WHO's recommendations on public health measures and surveillance of influenza and severe acute respiratory infections still apply.' "
For WP:PROPORTION with the rest of our Wikipedia timeline, we should probably just insert a brief summary sentence & reference like the following, at the end of the 5 January section:
- Disease Outbreak News was WHO's first international media report summarizing details of the Wuhan outbreak.[1]
References
- ^ "Pneumonia of unknown cause – China". Disease Outbreak News. WHO. 5 January 2020. Retrieved 25 August 2021.
Many thanks — 24.191.101.223 (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. —24.191.101.223 (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023 - January 10/11 events
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There has been some muddling of the initial timeline of the genome release around January 10.
The first posting was to Virological.org, and this is supported by multiple the contemporary references cited in this section for a different statement: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/china-releases-genetic-data-new-coronavirus-now-deadly, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/thailand-finds-wuhan-novel-coronavirus-traveler-china
An edit in 2021 moved this claim down as it was "unsourced".
This timeline has been source of dispute in recent days: https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome
This reference can be removed as it doesn't support any statements here: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/health/china-wuhan-pneumonia-virus-intl-hnk/index.html
The only citation that supports "GISAID first" is "BusinessWorld" which is not a source of merit for this topic: https://www.bworldonline.com/health/2021/02/24/346451/no-one-is-safe-unless-everyone-is-safe/
GISAID sequences were posted shortly thereafter, but were not first. DakkonA (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- So the literal change would be:
- The gene sequencing data of the isolated 2019-nCoV, a virus from the same family as the SARS coronavirus, was posted on Virological.org by researchers from Fudan University, Shanghai.[1][2][3]
- The same day, Public Health England issued its guidance.[4]
- Shortly thereafter, three genetic sequences of the isolated novel coronavirus from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, one from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and one from Jinyintan Hospital in Wuhan were posted to the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) portal.[2] DakkonA (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The science.org link could also be added as a source, but I'm not sure how to code it. DakkonA (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Schnirring11Jan2020was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Schnirring, Lisa (13 January 2020). "Thailand finds Wuhan novel coronavirus in traveler from China". CIDRAP. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
- ^ "Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus isolate Wuhan-Hu-1, complete genome". NCBI Genbank. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 17 January 2020. Archived from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Schnirring10Jan2020was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- Dear @Snowmanonahoe, I support this edit request. Unfortunately, I think there may have been a mixup when you applied the edit. Now it is a bit of a mess. The first sentence should be removed (mentioning upload to GISAID. Also, the whole section should be moved to 11 January, as that is when the sequences were published on virological AncientWalrus (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DakkonA and AncientWalrus: Do you think that the GISAID info should be moved to 12 January per the Science source?
GISAID, various information sources suggest, didn’t actually make its first genomes of the new coronavirus public until 12 January 2020.
In case you're not aware, this article was edited by a user who appears to have a conflict of interest with respect to GISAID and had tried to push the 10 Jan date in various articles. SmartSE (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)- @Smartse Yes I agree, all available evidence points towards sequences being available via GISAID on the 12th of January. I suspect GISAID's bold and weakly supported primacy claim was inserted into other articles on Wikipedia. Would be good to look for it systematically by e.g. searching for "GISAID". AncientWalrus (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @AncientWalrus: Yes I've been trying to look myself. Special:WhatLinksHere/GISAID gives you all the links, but annoyingly that includes all the pages where {{bioinformatics}} is transcluded. I could knock something up to exclude those links, but I see that you're already doing it manually. FWIW, I'd suggest being WP:BOLD and removing all the mentions of them being first. SmartSE (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Smartse Yes I agree, all available evidence points towards sequences being available via GISAID on the 12th of January. I suspect GISAID's bold and weakly supported primacy claim was inserted into other articles on Wikipedia. Would be good to look for it systematically by e.g. searching for "GISAID". AncientWalrus (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @DakkonA and AncientWalrus: Do you think that the GISAID info should be moved to 12 January per the Science source?
- I've removed a couple more mentions: [1] [2] and I can't find any more. SmartSE (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I made two edits rephrasing two paragraphs: The first concerns the first time a genome was submitted to a database (5th of January) and the second concerns the first time that genome was shared publicly (10th of January). Those seem to be the two major genome related milestones (availability to at least some researchers, then availability to all researchers/public). Feel free to refactor if you don't think my edits are good. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Those look good, but I'm still not sure about including GISAID on the 10th - "Shortly thereafter" is vague and imprecise and all the source tells us is that it was sometime between the virological.org upload and the date of publication. I suggest moving that sentence to the 12th and using the Science source in addition to the CIDRAP one. SmartSE (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)