Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Medicines - APN01[change source]

@SilverBlossom, Minorax: I see we've had some reverts in the section on APN01, so I'm pinging you both. SilverB, I think it is important to say "APN01 was tested in test tissue [and not in humans]" the way we say "PittCoVac was tested in mice [and not in humans]" so the reader can figure out why hospitals aren't already using it. I've touched it up a bit per your concerns. Can you think of a good, simple way to tell the reader this? Or do you think the information does not earn the space it takes up? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The description I changed was very technical and difficult to understand. It is a bit better now Darkfrog24. It might not be clear to the reader that "testing it in test tissue" means "isn't yet used in hospitals", especially if the reader does not understand testing phases.
I don't think it's good to include things that are in very early stages of testing, like this or pittcovac, because they're far away from being possible. I think it's best to say that scientists are testing lots of possible new medicines without going into detail about what those things are, unless lots of people are talking about one of them. SilverBlossom (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hm... That is something to think about.
I think that people want to know "When will a medicine be ready?" and I think they might come here to find out. Wikipedia is trusted. How do you think this article should serve that need?
By your thinking, the statement "In April 2020, the World Health Organization said that there were 54 compounds that could work as vaccines. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says it takes 18 months to test a vaccine to make sure it works and is safe" is good, but you think perhaps that's all the section needs or at least not much more? Do I understand you about right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I reverted it by mistake, sorry. Minorax (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Have people even heard of this apn01 medicine or pittcovac? I don't think so if these medicines aren't in the news. The citations are to press releases or journal articles which most people don't read so most people will not have heard of them. I don't think it serves readers to include these very early trials that are months or years away from being tested in humans because it gets people's hopes up for something that might not happen. Wikipedia is trusted and and I think including these trials makes them look more important than they are and I think that is bad.
I think it is important to include the information that a vaccine could take 18 months.
I think only medicines that people have heard of because they are in lots of news should be included. I think the hydroxychloroquinone and remdesivir should be included because they have been in lots of news. Those parts need to be made much simpler too because they use language and sentence structure that looks too complicated for this website.SilverBlossom (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir got more press coverage than PittCoVacc and APN01 because President Trump talked about them, because there are questions about whether or not they work, and because there are ethical questions about whether or not to use them. They will naturally get more coverage than treatments designed by doctors, proceeding through development normally.
You're talking about notability! Yes, we have criteria for whether something is notable enough to have its own article, WP:NOTABILITY, and I guess a toned down version would do for whether it's notable enough to have a mention in another article.
Have people heard of PittCoVacc? That is a legitimate question. I will just plug "PittCoVacc" into Google, hit "news" and here's what I got: Explorist Washington Times, the Street, Science Alert, and Pharmacy Times. I got a little more specific and found USA Today and Popular Mechanics. So I guess PittCoVacc is good to go, or good to stay, rather.
Now let's try it for APN01... Technology Networks, The Pharma Letter, hm, both of those seem to be copies of Apeiron Biologics, so they're not independent, so let's try The New York Times/Reuters and Asbury Park Press.
Of course, all that just means we may put PittCoVacc and APN01 into the article. It doesn't mean we have to. This answers the question "Are these things notable enough to be named here?" not the subjective editorial question of "Should they be here?"
I think the readers coming here will have two questions. 1) What's all this about "hydroxychloroquine"/"remdesivir" that Trump was talking about? Do they really work? But other people will ask 2) Forget the hype; are there real medicines for COVID-19? PittCoVacc and APN01 answer the second question.
I agree about making the language simpler. Simple English is not my first language, but I will give it a try later if no one else gets to it first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
That WP:NOTABILITY page is about article topics, not what goes in an article. Are there rules about what goes in an article? The New York Times article says that there are many medicines that are being tested. I think focusing on just two of them when they are not being talked about in lots of news makes those two appear to be much more important and well-known than they are. I think that talking about pittcovac and apn01 in this article makes them seem as important and and well-known as remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine. I think that if they are not so well-known, then making them look as important as the well-known medicines gives the wrong impression to readers and does not help readers.
I don't think the right question is "are there real medicines for covid19" because there are no real medicines right now. I think the article should say that there are no real medicines right now and that scientists are trying to find or invent medicines and vaccines and then test them. Then I think the article should talk in detail about the most well-known ones. The article could list all the others without giving them as much detail or space as the most well-known medicines and vaccines.
I gave simplification a try and darn but it is not my forte. Why don't you give it a go?
I think you make an excellent point, though my view is that the PittCoVacc and APN01 content should stay. I will mention that PittCoVacc does have its own article here on Simple English Wikipedia, though to my knowledge APN01 does not. It sounds as though you are asking "Why mention PittCoVacc and APN01 in particular? Is there anything special about them?" Well, PittCoVacc was the first COVID-19 vaccine to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's a big deal for scientists. My thought is that hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir are not in the same category as PittCoVacc and APN01. Do you think the other medicines mentioned in the NYT article should have a sentence or two as well? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You say that a reason to keep Pittcovacc in this article is that it has its own article. That makes it sound like someone else thinks Pittcovacc is important enough to write about. But you wrote the pittcovacc article!! I feel like you are leaving out important knowledge so that I will agree with you. I do not like that feeling.

Is there news or anything that says pittcovacc is important because it was the first peer-reviewed vaccine? I don't think there is.

I said that I thought ALL the different medicines and vaccines should be listed in the article. I think they should all get the same amount of space. I don't think pittcovacc or apn01 should get more space than the others. I think the only medicines or vaccines that should get more space are the ones that were talked about a lot in the news. SilverBlossom (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I meant to say "PittCoVacc meets enough of the NOTABILITY criteria to have its own article, so surely it is notable enough to have a mention in another article." There are indeed news articles that say PittCoVacc is important because it's been addressed in peer review. Would you like to see them?
SilverB, I support the bold, revert, discuss system. Your opinion of what should go into this Coronavirus disease 2019 article is exactly as important as mine. I don't own the content just because I wrote it; I gave it to Wikipedia when I clicked "publish changes." Go ahead and change it to what you think is best, and maybe I'll improve it more after that. The more people who work on an article, the better and more accurate that article is likely to become. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I did not EVER say that pittcovacc should not be mentioned in this article. I looked and saw that lots of places say it's the first peer-reviewed vaccine. But there are lots more articles that talk about other vaccines that are in clinical trials. I think pittcovacc should be mentioned in this article AS WELL AS the other vaccines in trials. And I think that pittcovacc should get ONLY AS MUCH SPACE AND NOT MORE as those other vaccines because to give it more space makes it sound like it is more important than those other vaccines. It is at most equally important as those others. I have said all this before.p
DarkF I do not know what the "bold, revert, discuss system" is. I did not say that you owned the content. I did not say that my opinion was more or less important than yours. I do not understand why you are talking about those things.SilverBlossom (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I said those things because I am trying to be welcoming and supportive. I see from your user history that you're newer to Simple than I am. (But maybe you have years of experience on another Wikipedia.) Some new users worry that people will yell at them if they change an article, and I think that might be what's going on with you. I'm trying to tell you that I won't be angry if you change the text I wrote. You think the PittCoVacc part should be shorter? Go ahead and shorten it. You think there should be more content about other vaccines? Go ahead and add it. I'm glad my legwork digging up sources could be a help.
Are these talk page posts because you want me to make your changes for you? EDIT: I see you've already gotten started. I especially like that you updated the 54 to 114 potential vaccines. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Why are you asking me why these talk page posts are here????? These talk page posts are because YOU STARTED THEM!!!!!! You started when you said "I see we've had some reverts in the section on APN01, so I'm pinging you both. SilverB, I think it is important to say "APN01 was tested in test tissue [and not in humans]" the way we say "PittCoVac was tested in mice [and not in humans]" so the reader can figure out why hospitals aren't already using it. I've touched it up a bit per your concerns. Can you think of a good, simple way to tell the reader this? Or do you think the information does not earn the space it takes up?"
I did and do not agree with you about how much space to give apn01 and pittcovacc. I would not have talked to you about them YOU hadn't started talking here!!!!!!! I would have gone ahead and made the changes.
Since we were talking and did not agree, I did not make changes because I did not know what you would do. I thought we should come to agreement first.
What are you talking about "your legwork in digging up sources"? You did not bring sources here and I do not see that you did legwork. Why are you saying you did something when you did not do that thing?
You did not tell me what the "bold, revert, discuss system" is. What is it?SilverBlossom (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for upsetting you. Here is a link to an essay on bold, revert, discuss. Basically, it means it's okay for you to change the article and then for us to discuss it. You don't always have to get agreement on the talk page first. You can try something and see if it works.
I made that first post because Minorax reverted your changes (which he later said was an accident) and I wanted to avoid an edit war. If I had known then that Minorax reverted you by accident, I would not have initiated this thread. By legwork digging up sources, I mean the sources I put to support the information about PittCoVacc and APN01 in the article and the other sources I cited here in this talk thread. I hope they make it easier for you to support the content you want to add to the article. Good luck. Can't wait to see what you come up with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel welcomed or supported. I feel frustrated and confused.
I forgot that you had put some sources on this talk page. I was doing my own research and didn't start with those.
That Bold Revert Discuss page also says Cycle "When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." I don't think we understand each other. I don't think we are in agreement about what to include. What I want is to know that you will not revert my changes about pittcovacc and apn01 after I make them. If you can't say that, then I want to work out here what the article should say. SilverBlossom (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't promise not to revert your changes. What if you edited the article to say "SilverBlossom is the best and Darkfrog24 is a silly fish"? More seriously, no one can promise that your changes won't be reverted by someone. If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the editing paged, "If you don't want your writing to be edited, erased, or copied by others, don't send it here." That's the rule for all of Project Wiki, not just Simple English Wikipedia. You and I could work out something that the two of us agree on, and then a third person might change it next week or next year. You have the right to change what I wrote, and everyone else the right to change what you wrote.
If you still want to work things out here first, what do you think the article should say? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)