Talk:Varicella zoster virus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nifancher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

it

it will kill your dog

Not necessarily. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

What is "125,000 nt"? Typo for nm?

"nt" is an abbreviation for "nucleotides", though VZV is a dsDNA virus so it should more correctly be expressed as "bp" (base pairs)... Techelf 03:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

immunity for life...?

You have to wonder though, if the wild virus produced immunity for life, why did anyone get SHingles? And they did, although it is more common now in ENgland, where we do not routinely immunise, than it used to be. I think the article may have been a bit too definite and simple on that topic.Midgley 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it means that it makes the person immune to primary varicella infection, i.e. chickenpox. Shingles is a different manifestation, and usually much more localized---someone who has had chickenpox can get shingles (and in fact it's a prerequisite), but someone who has had chickenpox almost never gets chickenpox again. --Delirium 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is getting more common to have a second attack of Chickenpox, in England. I can't find figures though. If the story about top-ups of immunity from exposure to spotty children is true then it would be expected to be more common as chickenpox incidence decreases in other countries as well. Midgley 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the VZ virus is that after its primary manifestation as Varicella, or chickenpox, it frequently takes up a subclinical, latent infection in the dorsal nerve ganglia. After the cell-mediated immunity granted by the primary infection wears off and the T-cells lose the ability to recognize and eradicate the virions (this usually takes a long time, but there are exceptions) the Zoster part of the virus can manifest itself as Herpes Zoster, or Shingles. Lifetime immunity is never guaranteed, unfortunately. There have been cases of secondary chickenpox breaking out after prolonged exposure to the virus or due to immunocompromisation.

vaccine failure

I wish I could add this to the article, but I have no sources, just my own observation:

The vaccine is a failure.

I know of at least 3 families who's children got the vaccine, but got chicken pox anyway (and at young ages, not 10 to 20 years later). The article claims that 'breakthrough infections' are mild, but that is not what I saw.

I fully expect it to be withdrawn from the market in the next 5 years. Either that, or they will recommend boosters every 7 years. (Which I guess will make the manufacturer happy.)

Certainly adults who have no contact with children with chicken pox should get boosters, and I expect this to be the recommendation. And I think that's a mistake in policy to depend on repeated vaccines when the illness itself is as mild as it is.

Ariel. 12:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

cross immunity?

Has anyone ever done a study if people who have had chicken pox have a lower herpes infection rate? When I was young, everyone had chicken pox because there was no vaccination. My observation is there were fewer herpes cases in those times and amongst these people. 121.209.50.226 (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Article cluster

For the record, the current article cluster relating to varicella zoster virus is:

• Varicella zoster virus
• Chickenpox
• Herpes zoster - rated GA
• Postherpetic neuralgia

Discussions of this cluster include:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Viruses and diseases

--Una Smith (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

CNS?

The article uses the abbreviation "CNS", but does not define it. Probably "Central Nervous System", but I hope someone with more knowledge verifies this.24.208.227.63 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Expanding and Revamping this page

I plan to do an extensive revamping of this page as part of WP:VIRUS. Because the decision was made to leave the VZV article cluster as indicated above, I will focus primarily on the virology with brief discussions of the diseases caused.

Currently this page has a lot of references to comparisons with Herpes Simplex Virus, while this may be informative to people who have extensive knowledge of HSV I don't believe that it is helpful for the lay person trying to learn about VZV alone. As such I plan to describe the lifecycle and physiology of the virus without extensive comparisons to other members of the herpesvirus family.

If anyone is interested in assisting in this project, I'd love the help!

Delyons13 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about the name change

I understand that it taxonomically goes by the name "Human alphaherpesvirus 3", but the common name is still "Varicella-zoster virus". Is this new name widespread enough that it trumps WP:COMMONNAME? – Þjarkur (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@NessieVL. In the same way that the Epstein–Barr virus article is not titled "human herpesvirus 4". – Þjarkur (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a common name to me. Maybe it's the "virus" part. And that it's a old synonym. And Epstein–Barr virus is now called Human gammaherpesvirus 4 anyways. Is Varicella-zoster virus or Varicella zoster virus used that much, or do people just say "I have chicken pox" instead of "I have a Varicella-zoster virus infection? I'm assuming you mean regular folk and not doctors or resaerchers as far as what is a common name. Convince me. --Nessie (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@NessieVL – I just meant that I cannot find this name being used anywhere except for when showing the taxonomy of viruses. Every single public health, medical, or virological article that I've been able to find uses the varicella-zoster name. Since the name is widespread and widely known (well, maybe not with the general public, but for everyone who works in health or with viruses) and the other one never used except for taxonomical comparison, I just thought it would fall under the naming conventions of the medical project here: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources".

I also cannot find any source calling it an old synonym, I only see ICTV's website placing it in parentheses like with other synonyms.

Please note that it's not possible to send links to ICTV's website, it uses URLs that rot instantly for some reason. I did look up the historical data though, I can see that many of our taxoboxes are out of date.

– Þjarkur (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's like Bombay vs. Mumbai. Sure, for hundreds of years in English it's been called one thing, but now it's officially something else. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus vernacular names. --Nessie (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard: I don’t think consensus was achieved here. --Nessie (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I note from the plant names wikipedia page - is this view the same for virus names?:

Currency If the scientific name of a plant has recently been changed (e.g. a species has been transferred into a different genus), and there is no reason to believe that the name change is contentious, use the new name regardless of usage in older reliable sources. It is not appropriate for us to retain archaic terminology while we wait for usage in older reliable sources to be swamped by usage in newer sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.169.156 (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)