Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant

Response internationally

Shall we add Singapore’s and Hong Kong’s response to this page? Hanami-Sakura (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done It has been added Run n Fly (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Term "Indian variant"

I tried adding the term "Indian variant" in the lead sentence as per here but it got reverted, with another editor saying here that the WHO doesn't want that term to be used. But surely the fact that the term is in widespread use (if unwarranted) means that term should be included. And should an encyclopaedia's wording be governed by what an individual organisation thinks is proper? Perhaps we could have wording like "The variant is also widely called 'the Indian variant' though the WHO discourages terms identifying variants with geographical areas." What do you think?--A bit iffy (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Since COVID-19 is not termed as China/Wuhan virus even being popular among many. Then we should follow the same here. Such terms are advised not to be used since they lead to COVID racism and it creates xenophobia. Even the term UK variant is not used anywhere in the lead paragraph of Lineage B.1.1.7.

I think we should stick to the term double variant instead. WHO has advised/clarified not to use the term 'Indian' via their verified twitter handle (https://twitter.com/WHOSEARO/status/1392396456774955014) and mentioned We refer to them by their scientific names and request all to do the same for consistency. as the reason behind it. Also, multiple WP:RS like The Hindu, NDTV and The Indian Express has reported the same. Even New York Times uses B.1.617 in their reporting. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

References

First, for the record (in case I'm misunderstood!), I agree with the WHO that variants of the virus shouldn't be referred to as by a geographical name (I'm aware of the Trump thing of referring to it with reference to China and Wuhan.) However, even the COVID-19 article you refer to uses a similar term "Wuhan coronavirus" (it's early on in the article). The WHO (again, correctly in my view) want to use the scientific designations, but this does not alter the fact that many media outlets do use "Indian variant" and similar terms. I've seen it used on British, Irish and French news sites. So perhaps we should include a remark in a "Name" section, in a similar way to the COVID-19 article, stating that the term "Indian variant" is often in use against the WHO's wishes.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@A bit iffy: OK then a separate "Name" sub-section can be included where we can state that some media around the world have called earlier the variant as "Indian variant" though the WHO discourages terms identifying variants with geographical areas with all the available WP:RS similar to Lineage_B.1.1.7#Names. Pinging other active contributors @SpookiePuppy: for their opinion. Run n Fly (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Run n Fly for the Ping, I understand where you are coming from with this tricky area. I have previously strongly defended the inclusion of the more accessible geographically-inspired name for two other notable variants, Lineage B.1.351 and Lineage P.1. You mention Lineage B.1.1.7 where it appears that a great deal of discussion took place before the editors arrived at the current version which as you rightly point out, manages the nomenclature problem in a unique way - with a dedicated section. From what I have observed so far, the overall variant nomenclature is an evolving area. It has taken many months to settle on something of a standardised naming of the variants on Wikipedia, (so that they now typically begin with "Lineage"). I haven't always got this right and there have been a number of speedy page moves! In the same way that the technical naming has evolved with each new variant, I believe the location-based tagging needs to evolve, not just because of the WHO advice discouraging country-based naming but because some editors have already made their objections clear and cited their valid reasons, such as avoiding xenophobia. To make matters even more difficult for editors to keep up with, certain variants have been redesignated along the way, for example VUI-202012/01 became VOC-202012/01 (re. Lineage B.1.1.7). Another valid reason not to use a term such as "Indian variant" is because this variant is simply not exclusive to that country (I know, stating the obvious). However, I think this exposes the core issue which we are grappling with: it's not deliberate geographical labelling, but rather a convenient reference that doesn't involve an alphanumeric code, which references the locality in which the variant in question was deemed to have been first identified and reported. So although somewhat off-the-cuff, the country-based naming is a much-truncated way of saying all that. Of course this didn't work so well for Lineage P.1 as it was first detected and reported in Japan, but was readily accepted to be the result of widespread infection originating out of Manaus, Brazil. I think if it were only an issue of redirects and the realistic Wikipedia search terms (that people are likely to type in), it would be fine as there are plenty of redirects already in place. Having said all that, I don't see why we can't have a dedicated section on names in much the same way as Lineage_B.1.1.7#Names. It might not be the most substantial section to start with, but I am sure it will grow over time. SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now added something to the "Name" section, but possibly it could be adjusted.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is commonly known and reported in the media as the 'Indian Variant' excluding this term would be missleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The term is not being excluded from the article, just the lead section. It's mentioned in bold text in the second paragraph under the section titled Name, as discussed above. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In Finland

Indian Covid variant reaches Finland

 Done The 3 cases for Finland have been added to the Statistics chart, with a provisional detection date of March 2021. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also added a new paragraph to the section First detection and international spread under the same reference.SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Rise in cases of Black Fungus

I recently visited the equivalent article for Lineage B.1.617 on the French Wikipedia site fr:Variant B.1.617 and noticed that a couple of sentences had been added on what they term "champignon noir". At first, I wondered what on earth had been added to the page, but gradually realised that there had been some cases reported in India of a rare, but serious fungal infection called Mucormycosis (or black fungus). The cases were reported in patients who had recovered from Covid-19. The short paragraph on the page pointed to a possible connection with type-2 diabetes and with the use of corticosteroids that would weaken the immune system and promote the black fungus infection. They clarify that there is not a direct causal link to SARS-CoV-2 virus itself. I searched for reliable sources on this and found a BMJ news story which confirms a rise in cases of mucormycosis in India in patients who had been recently treated for COVID-19. The BMJ article also mentions that the Indian Medical Association (IMA) has warned people not to smear cow dung and urine over the body or face, a practice which some believe protects against the virus. A BBC article reported that three hospitals in Mumbai saw 40 cases of the fungal infection in April, and Surat, a city in Gujarat, reported 40 cases . It is being reported by the Hindustan Times that in Maharashtra, there have been over 2,000 cases of mucormycosis and 8 deaths.
At present, there doesn't appear to be a direct link to Lineage B.1.617, however I think we should monitor this, not least because the larger proportion of the cases of the fungi are in Maharashtra, where this variant was first identified. On consulting a map of the state of Gujarat, I was able to determine that Surat is not far from the edge of the state of Mumbai and only 450km from Maharashtra - which in terms of the size of India is not as far as it sounds. Do any other editors think we should add a section on this, to point out the above, but make it very clear that there is not direct link to the SARS-CoV-2 virus? It may be that in the near future, a firmer link might be identified with Lineage B.1.617, even if is due to the above factors (cow dung/steroids/diabetes, etc.) rather than the variant. It also occurred to me that a more fitting place for such a section would be on the COVID-19 pandemic in India page. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

SpookiePuppy, I will request at the Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India to include as a subsection Run n Fly (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

"Indian variant" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian variant. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 16#Indian variant until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bangalamania (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Last detection" column in Statistics table

I have reverted the very misleading "Last detection" column in the statistics table. The single entry was not last detection, but last report by the media. Based on currently existing technologies, it is not physically possible to take a sample, sequence and get the result in a single day. Last media report ≠ day of detection. In the absolutely fastes countries, it takes an average of five days to sequence (UK, Australia, NZ, Luxembourg, a couple of Scandinavian countries are only with that average). In most countries, average is a week or more and many take several weeks. Just check recent GISAID records where the vast majority of today's uploads of this variant are from April or first ten days of May, a couple are from March, and only a single in the last seven days. One could think that B.1.617 was almost extinct! The column would, even if the real last detection dates were added (i.e., not "last reported by media"), misleadingly make it appear as if the variant was almost gone. I also note that among other variant pages with a similar table none have a column like that, which is unsurprising because they would have the same problem. Can anyone provide a good argument for that column? 178.155.171.181 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the "Last detection" column was potentially misleading, in that at first glance it could appear as if the sequencing of Lineage B.1.617 had become a thing of the past. I think the column should not be included unless a consensus of opinion (with good reasons for inclusion of the column) is reached on this talk page. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

daily totals

This will become outdated very quickly - should consider how this is useful: Perhaps few, many, dominant might be more useful??

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/virologist_indian_variant_not_major_concern_in_finland_though_care_should_be_taken/11950617

shows now at 60 cases in Finland for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Updated Finland under Col. 4 (other sources) to 60 cases and the source you offered here has been added. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

preprint from Public Health England - adjusted vaccine efficacy for Pfizer and AstraZeneca against B.1.617.2

A CNBC article describes a preprint (NOT YET PEER REVIEWED) purportedly from Public Health England that calculates adjusted vaccine efficacy for Pfizer and AstraZeneca against B.1.617.2. Preliminary data worth evaluation for inclusion here when it's formally published. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Jodi.a.schneider,  Done added along with a result from Pasteur Institute at Lineage B.1.617 § Vaccine efficacy. The preprints are to be replaced when WP:MEDRS available. Run n Fly (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

B.1.617.2 article

The .2 subtype is the interesting, newsworthy one. So I wonder whether this article should be recast in that vein, or alternatively a new article? Lots of information, like the first decection, would be more useful focused on the subvariant. Dan88888 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "Delta COVID-19 variant" or similar AND Split B.1.617.1 into "Kappa COVID-19 variant"

The WHO's new designation of a consistent nomenclature - Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants (who.int)

It's a more memorable name and is likely to become an emerging term within the media (per WP:NAMECHANGES)

JMonkey2006 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC) JMonkey2006 (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

JMonkey2006, I suggest wait and see which of the two will be more widely adopted. This is not exact a name change. Rather, this is a new naming nomenclature. – robertsky (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I was about to start an RM discussion here, just as it started to dawn on me that this is not going to be straightforward, as User – robertsky has identified. There will be some serious disentangling to do due to the sublineages. Having said that, I am not opposed to the name change to "Delta variant" or "Delta COVID-19 variant" or even "VOC delta" along with renaming B.1.617.1 "Kappa COVID-19 variant", but I also think we should wait and observe and give some thought as to how we will extricate B.1.617.1. SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I WP:JUSTDIDIT and someone reverted, I think given this page is about the VOC it should be B.1617.2 and start again with B.1617.1 --Almaty (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And apologies I didn't see this talk page. --Almaty (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's controversial, but I agree. It may take a while for the media to pick it up though. It really will require some effort to separate information of each variant, but the first step is to rename this article and create an article for Kappa to begin this work. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and split off to SARS-CoV-2 Kappa variant for B.1.617.1. These are not variants of COVID-19. They are variants of SARS-CoV-2. Most people infected by SARS-CoV-2 do not become ill with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant, is equivalent to the proposal currently in bold at B.1.1.7 and would make sense. Ordinary people can't or don't want to override media nation-based-stigmatising names. Boud (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Support SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant for this article and SARS-CoV-2 Kappa variant for the article about the new sublineage. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant for this article. I've taken the liberty of starting off a new article SARS-CoV-2 Kappa variant to assist with the disentangling of the sublineages. I have used WP:SPLIT in my edit summaries as often as I could so that the origin of the content was asknowledged. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@SpookiePuppy: You may be interested in {{copied}} if you don't know it. I'm not sure if using only the 'from' and 'to' parameters is recommended or not (the 'basic' usage has nine parameters!), but my assumption is that it's better to use the template with just these two parameters (a copy on both the source talk page and the destination talk page) rather than not using the template at all. Boud (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Support SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant for this article & SARS-CoV-2 Kappa variant article about the new sublineage--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record I would support Delta variant of COVID-19 or COVID-19 delta variant or even COVID-19 Delta per WP:MEDTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure whether its the common name everywhere but working in the field in Australia its certainly the common name here. --Almaty (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Nepal variant

There seems to be a lot of news about an unofficial "Nepal variant" of this [1] could something be mentioned here to accomodate searches? Troll Control (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the statistics chart

I've added a new column which has been inserted between the countries column and the old "GISAID" column. This effectively forms a new 2nd column. This new column is intended solely for the sublineage B.1.617.2 (a.k.a Delta variant) which is increasingly going to be the main focus of this recently renamed article. At the top of the new 2nd column, I have applied a new PANGOLIN source (Ref. 71) which points to a more specific reference[2] giving the stats for B.1.617.2. I have not been able to branch off the GISAID statistics because the existing source doesn't appear to be providing the sequences specifically for the Delta variant, instead, it seems to list all three sublineages rolled into one figure. If anyone has a link for a source which gives the GISAID figures solely for B.1.617.2, then this would be most welcome. The chart is going to need some further alterations, but I thought that this new column would be a step in the right direction. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

This paragraph was removed, because I had the main PHE source wrong initially, and I quoted an epidemiologist citing it in summary:

On 3 June 2021, Public Health England reported that twelve of the 42 deaths from the Delta variant in England were among the fully vaccinated, and that it was spreading almost twice as fast as the Alpha variant. Queen Mary University London epidemiologist Deepti Gurdasani reported that more than 90% of new cases in England are the delta variant, and advised on 11 June to, "Take precautions even if fully vaccinated." Also on 11 June, Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Canada reported that half of their 22 cases of the Delta variant occurred among the fully vaccinated.

References

I'd like to replace it, and am open to replacing the tweet ref. I know you're supposed to cite the source where you initially learned the included fact, but in this case Gurdasani was excerpting the "Technical briefing 15" in her Twitter thread, so it should be okay to omit the tweet citation, right? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:0:0:0:88EB (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comments/thoughts: (by person who removed paragraph): (1) I'd agree your finding of the Technical briefing 15 contains some excellent information. (Especially on diagnosis) Its actually quite a long document and probably needs an in-page citation. (2) The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the body section; not a place simply to place the headline news. In an ideal world with infinite RL time resource I've have simply moved it into the body. But we've got tweets going on so I'm hesitant with that. (3) There appear to be a date discrepancy on the last edit and with a comment of "fix date" the url seemed to be moved from technical briefing 14 to 15. (4) There's vaccination efficacy (generally measured in trials and relating to prevention of getting the disease) and vaccination effectiveness (generally measured when the disease becomes prevalent in a vaccinated or semi-vaccinated population and being related to prevention of "severe outcomes" often being measured by the hospitalizations metric). (5) I'm mostly interested in the World Health Organisation view of things. (6) I am aware and minded reports from SME's seem to indicate the Delta VOC is more transmissible, often with more server outcomes, and reducing vaccination effectiveness especially with one dose; that said evidence is full vaccination is generally effective in eliminating or reducing severe outcomes in a number of people. I have happy to see that sort of sentence in the lead section if it can be supported by the body. (7) Try to keep the dates to the history section mainly, and avoid cluttering other sections that should be more of a "status" than an historical log. (8) There's briefings from the UK today and that may have clearer information. (9) Im not a MEDRS/Medical article specialist. (10): I need to look at RL stuff and will be WikiBreaking throughout the day. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Symptoms

I edited the section, SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant#Symptoms using The Guardian and the BBC as sources. Can anyone with access to medical journals or medical websites provide better sources? Tim Spector may be able to help. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I found an article in a website called, Healthline but that isn't peer reviewed and is controverial. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Rename to Indian variant

It seems like we need to rename this article back to Indian variant as there is no prof from enough sources about the new name. See Talk:Spanish flu. We need some coherency in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.3.200 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closed per using WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Run n Fly (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

---

SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant → Covid Indian variant – Not enough sources about new name. See Talk:Spanish flu 85.48.185.61 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There are lots of variants of COVID-19 in India. And what does "Not enough sources about new name" even mean? There are millions of sources that say "Delta variant". Nohomersryan (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly. Very Strongly. Many, especially WHO, were very concerned about the practice of naming variants about the Location the variant was first identified in e.g. Brazil, South African, Indian, UK/Kent because variant identification can only be done by Genome Sequencing and not all countries have that capability. While I'm not personsally convinced about WHO's particular scheme I believe its totally appropriate to follow it. ( I dont object to Indian or UK/Kent etc etc being used as a redirect due to the amount of past literature using that name). WHO is WP:MEDRS. I am borderline on considering if this is simply a disruptive nomination.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I observe this has resulted in a BOT slamming Covid Indian variant at the top of the article page. This could be seen as a way of circumventing page protection to take a swipe at India. We AGF it isn't. Requesting to determine if this move request should be closed immediately, and I am tempted to do so myself. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't "a way of circumventing page protection", either "to take a swipe at India" or for any other purpose. It's a way of alerting readers of the article to this discussion so that they can take part if they choose to. Closing the discussion early with the avowed intention of hiding the fact that the discussion is taking place would not be a good idea. JBW (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Grunt. What a way to waste volunteers time by an anon IP.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose vehemently. Recommend using WP:SNOW since it states: "if an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason we didn't use British variant or Kent variant for the alpha one. Now the WHO has given them names and these names are used by sources (such as the BBC) and individuals more than Variant of Concern 202012/01 so I think the current title is preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. I personally still use "Kent variant" and "Indian variant" more when referring to them (and agree these names should have redirects and be mentioned in the articles) but I think we should use the formal names rather than nicknames. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genome maps

We (the Stanford HIVDB team) created these figures for different SARS-CoV-2 variants since this year, and we just released it under CC-BY-SA 4.0. I have uploaded the top four WHO named variants to Commons. Does anyone else other than me also think those figures are useful to be included in the variant articles? I'm afraid it is kind of interest conflict if I add those figures to the article.

Best. --PhiLiP (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)