Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requested move 14 January 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: move, per WP:SNOW; article creator has also supported move. I'm the creator of the move proposal, but I think this one currently is and always will be so in favour of a move that I find it resonable for me to move it. User:EditorInTheRye does, however, bring up a fair point that I think should be discussed. Do feel free to start a new RM about that (or perhaps an RfC on WP:COVID-19 for a more standardised nomenclature?). —Happy New Year from Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/) 14:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian variant → Lineage B.1.1.248 – Brazilian variant is incredibly unspecific (see also WP:CRITERIA: "Precision") and not even used in many sources (news media mainly use "Brazilian coronavirus variant"). Lineage B.1.1.248 (not B.1.1.248 lineage, although this is used by Japan's National Institute of Infectious Diseases and the WHO ["New variant identified in Japan"]) is in line with Rambaut et al.'s nomenclature (see https://www.cov-lineages.org for all lineages), which this name is almost certainly based on (https://cov-lineages.org/lineages/lineage_B.1.1.248.html is a dead link, but came up when I searched for "B.1.1.248" on Google, so it'll probably be fixed soon). —Happy New Year from Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Please move this article ASAP, so it has a more scientific and technical name. "Brazilian variant" doesn't even allude to SARS-CoV-2; as far as one can try to guess, it could be the name of a Brazilian cover's band... ACLNM (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Support per above, but keep the redirect from Brazilian variant for now. RWalen (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Support per RWalen's (and by implication ACLNM's) comments Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy move, that's a silly name. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but variant of what? Something like SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.248 seems much more appropriate. I understand the proposed name is consistent with the other ones out there at the moment (e.g.501.V2 variant and Variant of Concern 202012/01), but these names are going to get really confusing in a few years when we're not all thinking about COVID anymore, so maybe this is more of a cleanup task once the dust settles... EditorInTheRye (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, (reluctantly) a prompt move to Lineage B.1.1.248. My apologies for assigning this somewhat unscientific title, but I was just going with the common name that was generally appearing in the media. There again, one should own one's mistakes! I note the period of seven days is the norm for a page move discussion to run, but as other editors are urging a speedy move, I believe this is a clear case for the use of WP:SNOW, given there's already a clear consensus? SpookiePuppy (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I'm the creator of the re
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.

Nomenclature

There might be a need for some addition labels for this variant to be included in the article. As with other variants, particularly the Variant of Concern 202012/01, there is an evolving process, which could even lead to another page move. There are new terms being used. I've recently seen "Manaus variant" [1], where the Times are stating that it is likely to be given the name "P2" (although I am not convinced about the accuracy of this Times article as they may be mixing up the various mutations originating in Brazil). It is also being referred to as the "Manaus variant".[2] "The second, which has been detected in the Brazilian city of Manaus and in travellers arriving in Japan, has not been detected in the UK so far."[3] Also, I was looking at a French article for the Wikidata items and notice the following: "Un variant venu du Brésil détecté au Japon: « Le 9 janvier, le Japon a notifié à l’OMS un nouvelau variant du « SRAS CoV-2 » dans la lignée du « B.1.1.28 » (initialement signalé comme B.1.1.248) »..."[4] (Trans: A variant from Brazil detected in Japan... ..."On January 9, Japan notified the WHO of a new variant of "SARS CoV-2" in the line of "B.1.1.28" (initially reported as "B.1.1.248)"). So has the WHO decided it should now be referred to as "B.1.1.28"? One possible solution is to add the names near that start of the lead, or, we could follow what has been arrived at as a solution on the Variant of Concern 202012/01 page, where the references section has been divided into two subheadings Explanatory notes and Sources. SpookiePuppy (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-bans-flights-from-portugal-in-face-of-brazilian-covid-strain-93m5fk8wf
  2. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-second-variant-from-brazil-likely-already-in-the-uk-sage-scientist-says-12189428
  3. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-bans-flights-from-portugal-in-face-of-brazilian-covid-strain-93m5fk8wf
  4. ^ https://news.un.org/fr/story/2021/01/1086502

P.1, P.2, B.1.1.28 and B.1.1.248 etc.

The article seems to have got a bit lost, with any relationships between P.1, P.2, B.1.1.28 and B.1.1.248/ descendants thereof etc. not properly referenced. I thought it wasn't so confused last time I was here but it has become a fast-moving topic, and since then the P.1/P.2 terms have become accepted (with refs to justify). I don't have time to disentangle it now, but may be back in ~8 hours' time if nobody else fixes it first. Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it has become more complex. I was just thinking that we might need another page move, to "Lineage P.1", which appears to be a descendent of B.1.1.28 (the parent line). There's also the issue of conciseness under WP:CRITERIA. As you quite rightly point out, the Brazilian parent line appears under various aliases: B.1.1.28 and B.1.1.28.1 according to PANGO lineages.[1]. But also under the current name of this page B.1.1.248. It's very confusing. And there's also P.2. to consider, but it seems that the specific P.1. lineage is the correct one for this page as 4 of the affected countries listed on PANGO Lineages tally. I think a Page Move WP:RM#CM request should be put on this talk page. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Variant P.1

ECDC says: Variant P.1, described in Brazil, belongs to Nextstrain clade 20B [25,26], GISAID clade GR [2,27] and lineage P.1, as assigned by Pangolin (formerly P.1.1.28). This is sometimes incorrectly referred to as lineage B.1.1.248.

Shouldn't it be correct to move this article to Variant P.1 rather than let it stay here under this name which is incorrect? Manvswow (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Source:[1] Page 10.[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Risk related to the spread of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in the EU/EEA – first update" (PDF). ecdc.europa.eu. 21 January 2021. Retrieved 27 January 2021. Variant P.1, described in Brazil, belongs to Nextstrain clade 20B [25,26], GISAID clade GR [2,27] and lineage P.1, as assigned by Pangolin (formerly P.1.1.28). This is sometimes incorrectly referred to as lineage B.1.1.248.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Requested move 28 January 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: MOVED to Lineage P.1 with unanimous consensus, including from the proposer. (non-admin closure) —Happy New Year from Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/) 10:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage B.1.1.248 → Variant P.1 – as proposed by user Manvswow. It seems we should consider moving this page since the common name has changed in what is a rapidly developing area. It is now the case that Variant P.1 "is sometimes incorrectly referred to as lineage B.1.1.248." There are also the issues of precision and conciseness under WP:CRITERIA. The ECDA Europe's rapid risk assessment "first update"[1] of 21 January 2021 is cited by Manvswow to support this evolving nomenclature. In terms of Google searches, the current name, "Lineage B.1.1.248" in quotes yields only 844 results. A search for "Variant P.1" in quotation marks gives 22,200 results, whereas "Lineage P.1" gives just 4,190 results. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this now may reasonably be considered, when the 7 days are up, to be described as Making an uncontroversial move, and propose that the page should indeed be moved to Lineage P.1 at the earliest possible opportunity. Yadsalohcin (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Risk related to the spread of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in the EU/EEA – first update" (PDF). ecdc.europa.eu. 21 January 2021. p. 10. Retrieved 28 January 2021. Variant P.1, described in Brazil, belongs to Nextstrain clade 20B [25,26], GISAID clade GR [2,27] and lineage P.1, as assigned by Pangolin (formerly P.1.1.28). This is sometimes incorrectly referred to as lineage B.1.1.248.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
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.

Additional countries in table 14 February

One case each in 8 additional countries were added to the table on 14 February, with, suspiciously, the date given as 15 Feb. No citations were given for these. Initially I tagged these with "citation needed", then commented the whole section out and reverted the totals as an initial search threw up no reports for Algeria as an example. Subsequently a substantial amount of searching has brought nothing to light on P.1 in these countries, so I shall delete their table entries. Yadsalohcin (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yadsalohcin. I agree that the additional 8 countries cannot be verified by searches. I also checked the P.1 report [2] but this has not been updated since 13 February 2021 and does not support the claim for the addition of the extra countries. There has been a similar addition of countries, again for the future date of 15 February, on the 501.V2_variant page. However, this has been much more difficult to revert as there were numerous edits. In the end I had to perform a manual revert. SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:501.V2 variant - sanctions requested against the user at 120.29.98.80. - Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark has confirmed one now. https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/foerste-tilfaelde-af-brasiliansk-virus-fundet-i-danmark/8491234 https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2021-03-03-danmark-finder-foerste-tilfaelde-af-brasiliansk-variant are the sources. I dont know how to edit tables so it looks alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.116.127 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Countries in the statistics table from 22 February

On 22 February 2021, I added 13 new countries to the statistics table, citing the repeat reference "CovLinages" (PANGO Lineages B.1.28 [3]). The additions included, for example, the UK with 34 cases (since updated in the table to 37). However, on checking the CovLineages report today 26 February (N.b. the report was last updated 25 February), I was surprised to see the 13 countries are no longer represented. Fortunately, back on 22 February, before adding the 13 countries I had the presence of mind to take a screenshot of the P1 source as it was then, clearly showing the 13 additional countries and the sequences. (I can make this screenshot available is anyone requires it, probably by email, unless there is somewhere I can upload it.) The additional countries which I added were: Russia, China, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Iran, India, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Australia and Denmark. I am not sure what is going on at PANGO Lineages, but I can only assume that the 13 countries were added in error, and this has since been rectified. I had checked the UK position against the PHE document[4] that gives the latest figures for the variants and I noticed that this has consistently stated 0 (zero) cases for P1, which they describe as "descendent of B.1.1.28" - "Japan ex Manaus, Brazil". Now I am not sure what to do for the best. If someone checks the updated PANGO Lineages report, it is going to suggest that our table is totally inaccurate. Should we revise the table downwards and remove all trace of the additional countries, as they can no longer be supported by the source? SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and remove, per WP:Bold, the 13 countries no longer supported by the CovLineages source. The United Kingdom will be added back with a more recent date and different source as it appears from media reports that 6 cases of Lineage P.1 have been detected in the the UK. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a recurring problem with the Covlineages page. The latest batch of countries that has been added to the wiki page sourced from Covlineages has the same problem - the covlineages page no longer mentions Burkina Faso, St. Kitts & Nevis, Azerbaijan, Singapore, and many more. I think these ought to be removed for now.

Nolongerlurking (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The 9 countries have been removed. In this case, they 9 countries were not added because they ever appeared in the "CovLineages" source, they were added as part of an act of vandalism by User talk:120.29.97.144. I have now restored the country count to 27 and the total confirmed cases to 524. SpookiePuppy (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia: First death from P.1

It appears that Columbia's National Health Institute are reporting the first fatality from Lineage P.1. [5] I haven't added this yet as I wasn't sure where to add it. Also, I note that this first fatality was someone in their later years, with multiple comorbidities and that they actually died over a month ago, on 28 January 2021, after being hospitalised in Bogotá. It is only being reported on this week, from 13 March 2021. There's a CNN article in Spanish as an additional source. [6] Perhaps a short paragraph should go at the end of the lead? SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. There’s undoubtedly been many deaths from P.1: just look at what’s happening in Manaus. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/) 16:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring - "Bolsonaro variant"

80.43.80.77 (let's call you 77 for short), please stop edit warring. I know you want to add "Bolsonaro variant," and I have no reason to doubt that term is being used colloquially in Brazil. However, Wikipedia cannot host that claim unless it is sourced in multiple reliable, secondary sources. It's ok if those sources are in Portuguese. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP user, 81.40.232.1, is making the same edit. Please join us here and share your sources! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an equivalent "Lineage P.1" page in Portuguese [[7]]. However, this page does not include any mention of a "Bolsonaro variant", probably due to the same lack of reliable sources. If there had been a credible source in Portuguese, we could have propagated it over to the English page and translated it. SpookiePuppy (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this anonymously in the past (as 75.18.113.23). While I do not live in Brazil, I am Brazilian, well versed in Portuguese, and I follow Brazilian news and conversations. As I added as a comment of my edit, no one calls it Bolsonaro Variant. Not in the media, not among his political opponents (you won't find this name out of the mouth of Ciro Gomes or Lula This might have been a twitter hashtag, but one that didn't even get traction to get onto trending topics. Colloquial means used in ordinary conversation (not a very specific Twitter niche). -- LuisGuilherme (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Brazilian variant" from lead

I recently reverted revision 1016696597 by User:Lucasgenoma where the lead section text "or colloquially known as the Brazil(ian) variant" had been removed along with several references. Whilst I appreciate the sentiment behind the edit (to avert xenophobia), a change such as this should be discussed here on the talk page and a consensus reached with other Wikipedia editors in order to determine which way to go. SpookiePuppy (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted another edit of the same kind by User:Lucasgenoma, although this time, they did provide a source, but in the edit summary. However, I believe a change of this kind should be discussed on the talk page. I have invited the user to start a discussion here. A similar edit was made to the 501.V2 variant page. I do believe they have a point as the Science article[8] they provided said "Unfortunately, variants are widely being referred to by their country of first description. This naming convention should be avoided", and that "The World Health Organization is expected to announce a standard nomenclature soon". However, I feel this relates more to the primary designation, such as what is used by the media in main headlines, or on page titles, etc. rather than additional lists of names. The article for Lineage B.1.1.7 has a subsection titled "Names" where many alternatives are listed . SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map does not show UK: why

Why does the map at the top of the article not show the UK as one of the countries where P1 was confirmed? Both the table in the article and the reference given under the map also include the UK! 81.152.104.26 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map reflects the situation as of 8 February, so before cases were identified in the UK. While it is not incorrect as such, it is badly in need of updating. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decreased P.1 neutralization

The following line could use some work: "Scientists at MIT, Harvard and Cambridge, and physicians of Boston Hospitals, corroborated that people fully vaccinated with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have significantly decreased neutralization with P.1—in a preprint work."

Specifically, the cited work is very careful to qualify its claim of decreased neutralization of P.1 because it doesn't account for other "antibody-mediated functions" and "vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients".

The language here can be misleading because the cited study did not involve actual P.1 virus in actual vaccine recipients, instead it used a pseudovirus model of P.1 that is "only capable of modeling the ACE2-dependent entry step of the SARS-CoV-2 lifecycle". In this context, neutralization ≠ effectiveness necessarily, although that's probably what one would infer with the current wording.

Tl;dr maybe this line should be removed until some non-primary source works are available or it needs to be more carefully qualified because it has the potential to misinform. arafey (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Gamma COVID-19 variant" or similar

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

It's consistent with the other new nomenclature and is likely to become an emerging term within the media (per WP:NAMECHANGES)

JMonkey2006 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's controversial, but I agree. It may take a while for the media to pick it up though. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

finland

A total of 12,281 cases caused by the coronavirus variants have been identified in Finland:

Alfa-variant: 7,953 Beta-variant: 1,445 Gamma-variant: 7 Delta-variant: 2,876 The numbers of variant strains are based on the data reported to the National Infectious Diseases Register. The information was updated on Wednesday, 11th August.

https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/what-s-new/coronavirus-covid-19-latest-updates/situation-update-on-coronavirus

suggests to me the figures are very out of date

Cov-2 and SARS compatibility?

Pardon my French but what the f*** is covid-19 or c o v - 2 and why do you have to call it that when mixed with SARS I believe those two diseases covid-19 and SARS are not compatible with 

each other 64.114.29.128 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:SARS-CoV-2_Gamma_variant"