Talk:Andes virus

Needs to update

This page needs to be updated in relation to ongoing hantavirus epidemic aboard a ship (April 2026) confirming it is contagious disease on the contrary to what this page is describing. ~2026-27707-13 (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Human-to-human transmission of Andes virus has not been confirmed in the current outbreak (they are still investigating), and there is not strong evidence that it is contagious according to Toledo, et al.. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Apples or oranges? There is, or is not, strong evidence that it is contagious according to various scientific papers.--As of yesterday, i have read about plenty of researchers saying that there is little chance of a (related) pandemic, but they are however following the story with interest. ~2026-27573-13 (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

There are different types of scientific studies, some given more weight than others. Toledo, et al. is a systematic review (the top of the pyramid), whereas Martinez, et al. (2020, the NEJM article people keep citing), for example, is a primary study. Primary studies shouldn't be used for contentious material, especially if they are contradicted by secondary studies (such as systematic reviews). Toledo is a high quality source (maybe the highest currently) specifically about whether hantaviruses spread between people so that's why it's used as a source. It even discusses Martinez and finds major flaws in their methods: read the paragraph starting with "Analysis of the evidence". Velayinosu (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

What could be added to the article, before it gets semi-protected (c. 12 May)

What info should/could be added (before IP-editors will get relegated to the talk-page)? ~2026-27573-13 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Who says this page will be protected? By the way, if you enjoy editing Wikipedia this much, then you should just go ahead and make an account. Velayinosu (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Disinfection (sub-section of "Treatment and managment")

The topic "disinfect" is in a subsection of its own.

Second-opinion needed, in regard to if any of the sources are specific about ANDV.--Removal of sources needed, for not being specific about ANDV?

Second-opinion needed, in regard to if any of the sources are adequate for this life-and-death topic?

Notable sources: are they all notable, or partial removal needed? See diff,
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1354137276&oldid=1354136613 .

Promotional sources: Partial removal? Any expert sources that are promotional? If so, then what?

If all the above checks out - is the wiki-text encyclopedic (and otherwise okay to keep)? ~2026-29043-04 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-29043-04 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Nuance needed (as of May 2026)?

"Andes virus typically causes disease in Argentina and Chile." ~2026-29043-04 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
"Andes virus typically causes disease in Argentina and Chile [and on at least one cruiseship that was sailing on the Atlantic Ocean]."--Are those words good enough, if someone (not me) willl find a source? ~2026-29057-56 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-29043-04

Too detailed for the lede; moved to talk-page

(The following is supposed to already be in other sections. Please double check, and say if so.)

"The genome of ANDV is about 12.1 kilobases (kb) in length and segmented into three negative-sense, single-stranded RNA (−ssRNA) strands. The small strand encodes the viral nucleoprotein, the medium strand encodes the viral spike protein, which attaches to cell receptors for entry into cells, and the long strand encodes the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), which replicates and transcribes the genome. Genome segments are encased in nucleoproteins to form ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes that are surrounded by a viral envelope that contains spikes emanating from its surface.

Andes virus replicates first by binding to the surface of cells with its envelope spikes. Virus particles, called virions, are then taken into the cell by endosomes, where a drop in pH causes the viral envelope to fuse with the endosome, which releases viral RNA into the host cell. RdRp then transcribes the genome for translation by host cell ribosomes and produces copies of the genome for progeny viruses. New virions are assembled near the cell membrane, where virions bud from the cell membrane and use it to obtain their viral envelope and leave the cell." ~2026-29057-56 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Moved to talk-page

"The primary reservoir is the long-tailed pygmy rice rat, though the virus is also found in other species such as the long-haired grass mouse (Abrothrix longipilis). "

Justification for move: Largely mentioned in the lede (and in other section of the article). ~2026-29057-56 (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism/edit-warring by one established user?

The community might want to take action, in whatever way it thinks appropriate.

See diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1355645814&oldid=1355645298 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1355798198&oldid=1355739131

Anyone might want to ask if that user is operating in the zone, where a topic-ban, has/should become a serious consideration. ~2026-30971-07 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. It was clearly not constructive with massive blanking in various sections. I suggest the user to come here and discuss, point by point, the content he or she want removed from the article. Prxtxnitx (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Velayinosu. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have explained some of the issues before.

The IP editor insists on adding information about the Hondius outbreak to this article, not the article of the outbreak itself, even though this article is about the virus, not the outbreak. The result is that, after the IP editor's edits, there was substantially more information about the Hondius outbreak than all other Andes virus history. The Hondius outbreak is one event (ultimately a minor one) in Andes virus history that was blown way out of proportion by news and social media. It's fine to mention it in a sentence or two (which I did) but anything more than that is excessive. It's an issue of proportion and keeping with writing articles in summary style.

The IP editor seems to have an issue with the inclusion of Toledo, a systematic review about human-to-human transmission of hantaviruses, mainly Andes virus, and objects to any effort to include it. The issue is this: the two most authoritative sources about Andes virus transmission are Toledo and the recent statement by hantavirus experts (many big names in the field). The sources actually contradict each other on some points, so it is necessary to write the article in a way that balances them, which is what I did. The IP editor stated in a merge discussion that this is a fringe view, but it's actually how articles are supposed to be written. Instead, the IP editor insists on excluding Toledo and writing the text in a manner that violates WP:NPOV while using sources that do not meet WP:MEDRS.

The "Phylogenetics" section is sourced entirely to primary sources, some from a long time ago, so some of the information may be out of date. It's fine to use primary sources to supplement some non-medical information here and there, but it's not good for entire sections to be sourced to primary sources. If there is information about the phylogeny of Andes virus worth including, then it will show up in secondary sources. If there are no secondary sources about something, then it shouldn't be included. The "Strains" subsection also has its own issue: it is not clear if the strains/isolates listed are an exhaustive list of all identified strains/isolates or just random ones the IP editor found. In either case, such a list shouldn't be included unless there are secondary sources that set inclusion criteria for the list.

The IP editor has removed content from the lead while leaving it in the body, which should not be done. The lead is supposed to summarize the body.

The IP editor has removed content from the body while leaving it in the lead, which should not be done. The lead is supposed to summarize the body.

The "Treatment and drug development" section does not belong on this article, has sourcing and over-detailing issues, and was partially split off from the "Disease" section, making that section worse off in the process.

The IP editor hasn't noticed that his/her preferred version of the article has the same image twice, one with an incorrect caption.

Other improvements that I have tried to make, like MOS fixes, are being undone in the process.

The IP editor is getting into WP:OWN and WP:BOOMERANG territory, so I recommend he/she take some time off from editing and read through Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:MEDRS. Velayinosu (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Edit-warring continued on 25 May at 01:00
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1355974183&oldid=1355922603 . ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: "Andes virus infection" has been removed from the lede, by user:Velayinosu. I suggest that anyone reverts user:Velayinosu's version of the lede. That would be a good start. (The article history, already shows justification, for changes done to the lede.)--Reverting the entire edit by user:Velayinosu, is also fine (and then one can tweek the article section-by-section, if/when the need becomes clear). ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-30971-07

  Velayinosu, I am mostly concerned with the content and citation removal of Murúa et al. (2003). If you restore this, I wont bother other issues, not because I believe them to be necessarily true or good edits but because I lack time and interest enough to engage with all parts of the article. Prxtxnitx (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have reverted user:Velayinosu and the section-blanking. References Murúa et al. (2003), and other references, are now back in the article.
  
  Diff, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1356064319&oldid=1355974183
  ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I re-added Murua. Prxtxnitx, your contributions weren't problematic, they just got hit in the crossfire. Velayinosu (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit-warring, is ongoing "01:11 26 May", diff,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1356151403&oldid=1356064319

~2026-30860-28 (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Fringe view in the lede?

One user is insisting that the lede should say:
"Although a systematic review of research did not find sufficient evidence of such transmission, experts consider it to be possible between close contacts while noting that ANDV is not highly transmissible."

"Human-to-human transmission of ANDV is sometimes reported. "

It seems to me like the user is trying to downplay something. (I can not say if that issue is somehow related to the user consistently insisting on removing "Andes virus infection", from the lede.)

Mentioning "Systematic review" in the lede, seems odd too. ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a fringe view to summarize sources. If you disagree with the systematic review, that's fine, but it's not fringe to cite it or summarize it alongside other sources. Velayinosu (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relevant points of wikipedia's content guideline:

"... prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported.

Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers."

Checklist in regard to scrutinizing the view(s) that user:Velayinosu is championing - should include the year that the (claimed) notable reference(s) was published. ~2026-31572-93 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-30860-28

42 months old, is the age of the reference that user:Velayinosu is using. That is arguably not "recent" (according to wikipedia-guidelines). User:Velayinosu seems to not be balancing the lede, but rather cherry-picking one source, to fit his/her narrative. ~2026-31572-93 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What narrative is being pushed? You haven't explained what is wrong with the way I worded the text. You're just quoting it and going "look at this" without explaining what the issue is. Velayinosu (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Your narrative has had the following removed from the lede, several times,

"Human-to-human transmission of ANDV has been shown in a systematic review published by UK Health Security Agency, in 2026. That contrasts an earlier (2022) systematic review, that ... .

The virus is linked to Andes virus infection. An outbreak of Andes virus on a cruise ship was identified in April 2026."

See your edit of 27 May 2026 at 01:35.

~2026-31618-17 (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-31618-17 (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Link to the cruiseship-outbreak (from the end of the lede)

C. one article exists about an outbreak of the Andes hantavirus.

At the end of the lede, there should be a link to that.

I really think that at this point, the month and year is important to mention at the end of the lede:

"An outbreak of Andes virus was identified in April 2026, on a cruiseship".

The word cruiseship seems okay, in this context.--For whatever reason, at least one user is insisting that there should be no link in the lede, to the "April 2026 identified outbreak". Claims have been made that it is not an important outbreak (ignoring that the cruiseship was kicked out of one country). ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit-warring on that point too, is ongoing "01:11 26 May", diff,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1356151403&oldid=1356064319

~2026-30860-28 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Edit-warring (and no justification for removal), is ongoing 27 May @01:35,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1356318386&oldid=1356293094
  ~2026-31618-17 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No consensus for removing "Andes virus infection", from the lede (as of Q2 2026)

Andes virus infection is mentioned, near the end of the lede.--That phrase being in the lede, seems to have become part of de facto edit-warring. ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit-warring on that point too, is ongoing "01:11 26 May", diff,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1356151403&oldid=1356064319

~2026-30860-28 (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Edit-warring (and no justification for removal), is ongoing 27 May 01:35,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1356318386&oldid=1356293094
  ~2026-31618-17 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-30860-28

No consensus for removing (following) text from the lede

"Andes virus is the only hantavirus known to spread between people, a route first identified in 1996. This transmission as of 2026 is strongly supported by (the) evidence.".

I think that the refs and the text is okay and appropriate.

At least one user seems to be in disagreement. ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-30860-28 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit-warring on that point too, is ongoing "01:11 26 May", diff,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andes_virus&diff=1356151403&oldid=1356064319

~2026-30860-28 (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Not ready for wiki-article (Research-section, paragraph: 2026 cruiseship outbreak)

"4 cases have showed (as of 20 May) through sequencing, "the presence of" ANDV, in regard to that outbreak; they are case 6, case 5, case 3, and case 2." ~2026-31618-17 (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Adequate text about human-to-human transmission?

Text that has been vetted by a readership "contributorship" larger than the contributorship of "Andes virus" (article):

"The Andes virus is the only known hantavirus to spread between humans.

It spreads through close, sustained contact between people, and it may be airborne. The WHO has emphasized (in May 2026) that the risk of an epidemic is low, as previous outbreaks have only involved transmission in close-contact settings. "

Maybe the above text will not be controversial in the "Andes virus" article.

Attribution: mostly from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MV_Hondius_hantavirus_outbreak&oldid=1356355137

~2026-31618-17 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

References