This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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.
References
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 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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
Nolongerlurking ( talk) 13:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
suggests to me the figures are very out of date
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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.
References
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 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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
Nolongerlurking ( talk) 13:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
suggests to me the figures are very out of date
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)