Jump to content

Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →yet another stupidly locked article with problems: Amending: "correct" to "right"; Typo fix: Deleting "this" before "specific one".
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant/Archive 1) (bot
Line 22: Line 22:
{{Auto archiving notice|=Lowercase sigmabot III|age= 30|units= days}}
{{Auto archiving notice|=Lowercase sigmabot III|age= 30|units= days}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/York_College_of_Pennsylvania/Technical_and_Scientific_Communication_(Fall_2021) | assignments = [[User:Aweger|Aweger]] | start_date = 2021-08-23 | end_date = 2021-12-10 }}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/York_College_of_Pennsylvania/Technical_and_Scientific_Communication_(Fall_2021) | assignments = [[User:Aweger|Aweger]] | start_date = 2021-08-23 | end_date = 2021-12-10 }}

== Data summed up wrong ==

In the second paragraph of the intro the following sentence is wrong:
"In August 2021, Public Health England (PHE) reported secondary attack rate in household contacts of non-travel or unknown cases for Delta to be 10.8% versus 10.2% for the alpha variant; the case fatality rate for those 300,010 with Delta is 0.2%, where half of the cases and one third of the deaths are unvaccinated.[10]"

It should read:

In August 2021, Public Health England (PHE) reported secondary attack rate in household contacts of non-travel or unknown cases for Delta to be 10.8% versus 10.2% for the alpha variant; the case fatality rate for those 300,010 with Delta is 0.2%, where 55% of the cases and two thirds of the deaths are unvaccinated.[10]

As per the document cited, the ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated cases is 45/55 and vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths is 33/66. So the inverse of what is written.

* Not wrong. More deaths are from the vaccinated, because being old has higher chance of death, no matter with or without viruses, with or without vaccines. This is the nature. Everybody dies. —— <span style="font-family:Freestyle Script; font-size:20px; ">[[User:CommInt&#39;l|CommInt&#39;l]]</span> ([[User talk:CommInt&#39;l|talk]]) 18:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


== Incomplete sentence? ==
== Incomplete sentence? ==


The sentence "These fatality rates are lower than the average fatality rate of 1.9%, presumably due to the now relative high percentage of the more vulnerable in England." seems incomplete. Is something like "... that have been vaccinated." missing at the end?
The sentence "These fatality rates are lower than the average fatality rate of 1.9%, presumably due to the now relative high percentage of the more vulnerable in England." seems incomplete. Is something like "... that have been vaccinated." missing at the end?

== Mention of CFR in second paragraph of article ==

In the current revision of the article, the second paragraph contains a sentence proclaiming that "the Delta variant in England has case fatality rate of 0.2% (0.13% if unvaccinated), while the Alpha variant has 1.9%". Including this in the article seems to me to be both misrepresentative and dangerous. For one thing, the numbers used for this "0.13%" conclusion (or any CFR for that matter) are extremely skewed towards people under the age of 50, with over 98% of the cited cases being recorded in people under the age 50, while it is well known that people above the age of 50 are especially at risk from Covid. On the other hand, it is exactly that group which first had access to vaccines. It would seem to me to be irresponsible to make any blanket statement on the CFR based on the cited document, which doesn't even seem to purport to have found a CFR for the Delta variant as a whole, at least not for unvaccinated people. [[User:Cartsbicep|Cartsbicep]] ([[User talk:Cartsbicep|talk]]) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
:Moreover, PHE itself has stated that this claim "is factually incorrect" and a manipulation of the data: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/07/instagram-posts/data-showing-lower-death-rate-coronavirus-delta-va/ [[User:Cartsbicep|Cartsbicep]] ([[User talk:Cartsbicep|talk]]) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
::I agree. The characterization of mortality should be independent of the health conditions of specific populations and the conditions of specific health systems. --[[User:Ftrebien|Fernando Trebien]] ([[User talk:Ftrebien|talk]]) 22:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
At last this sentence was removed.--[[User:Dipa1965|Dipa1965]] ([[User talk:Dipa1965|talk]]) 19:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
* If you think the "correct" CFR should be higher, list a country where the CFR is higher alongside with England data. England has documented 300,000 cases in a clear manner, please provide if any other country has clearer data. —— <span style="font-family:Freestyle Script; font-size:20px; ">[[User:CommInt&#39;l|CommInt&#39;l]]</span> ([[User talk:CommInt&#39;l|talk]]) 16:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
*: I think the misleading part of the existing statement is that it combines the <50 and >50 groups into a single group, even though they are extremely different and the data purposely splits them apart. The article currently says "half the cases and 1/3 of the deaths were unvaccinated", when really the "half of cases are unvaccinated" just comes from the <50 crowd (which accounts for ~89% of the cases) where as the "1/3 of deaths" comes from the >50 crowd (which accounts for ~90% of the deaths). This happens because the two groups have completely different vaccination rates, where around ~60% of the >50 are full vaccinated (~90% have started vaccination) and only around ~20% of the <50 are fully vaccinated. The >50 still have the most deaths because those <50 are unlikely to die even without the vaccine (which is why they're reported separately), but the much higher vaccination rate in >50 means that you're going to see more cases in vaccinated people. If you only look at the >50 group then you see that the fully vaccinated have a 1.8% death rate and the unvaccinated had a 5.9% death rate (Note: including the groups part-way through vaccination gives a new death rate of 1.6%), despite more deaths of vaccinated people (since the vaccinated population is much larger). It's only when you combine the two groups do you get the suggestion that somehow only half the cases were vaccinated while 2/3 of those who died had some level of the vaccine, which would imply that the vaccine makes it *more likely* that you die - and that is not true, it's just that you're more likely to have gotten the vaccine if you were in the group already more likely to die. The >50 population makes this clear, the group who got the vaccine had a much better outcome even though that group had more total deaths. [[User:Compstrong|Compstrong]] ([[User talk:Compstrong|talk]]) 07:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
* The England data is not misleading. It shows that being young is better than being vaccinated. —— <span style="font-family:Freestyle Script; font-size:20px; ">[[User:CommInt&#39;l|CommInt&#39;l]]</span> ([[User talk:CommInt&#39;l|talk]]) 17:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
* As per request, I will emphasize that the data is as it is now because young deaths are rare. —— <span style="font-family:Freestyle Script; font-size:20px; ">[[User:CommInt&#39;l|CommInt&#39;l]]</span> ([[User talk:CommInt&#39;l|talk]]) 18:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


== study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.08.21261768v1.article-metrics ==
== study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.08.21261768v1.article-metrics ==

Revision as of 07:03, 28 September 2021

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aweger (article contribs).

Incomplete sentence?

The sentence "These fatality rates are lower than the average fatality rate of 1.9%, presumably due to the now relative high percentage of the more vulnerable in England." seems incomplete. Is something like "... that have been vaccinated." missing at the end?

study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.08.21261768v1.article-metrics

When it says "On August 10, a study showed that the full vaccination coverage rate is correlated inversely to the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant mutation frequency in 16 countries (R-squared=0.878). Data strongly indicates that full vaccination against COVID-19 is critical to suppress emergent mutations.[68]"

This study is a PREPRINT and the statistic analysis isn't rigorous because it violates some assumptions and it has some issues not addressed by the researcher.

Moved 'Indian Variant' from lede to a separate 'Names' section as per previous discussions

Hello,

There have been previous discussions on this subject.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SARS-CoV-2_Delta_variant#Removal_of_%22Indian_variant%22_from_lead 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SARS-CoV-2_Delta_variant/Archive_1#Term_%22Indian_variant%22

To maintain consistency with other similar articles and for the reasons mentioned in the previous discussions, I've moved the term 'Indian Variant' to a separate section called Names.

Tagging folks from previous discussions for their views. @BappleBusiness: @SpookiePuppy: @A bit iffy: @Run n Fly:

Amazingcaptain (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur this is a good move. Especially given the negative consequences associated with naming viruses after places. See [1] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the move. Should we also mention in the section that the Kappa variant was also first identified in India? Also, I don't know if B.1.617.3 was found in India as well, should we also mention that if it is true? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 19:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Amazingcaptain: for sorting this. The new subsection looks good and solves the problem. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yet another stupidly locked article with problems

"These mutations, when taken individually, are not unique to the variant; rather, their simultaneous occurrence is."

"These[clarification needed] mutations, when taken individually, are not unique to the variant; rather, their simultaneous occurrence is."

Please do not publish my IP.

You are right about that claim, in that it's no longer correct. I originally added it along with the source when this article related to Lineage B.1.617. At that point, the statement was correct in relation to two defining mutations, E484Q and L425R. Where you ask for clarification as to what "These mutations" refers to, it would have been E484Q and L425R taken together, and this would explain why this line has been left in under the bullet point for L425R. The article has since morphed into a specific one covering the Delta variant (lineage B.1.617.2) as opposed to the parent lineage B.1.617 (which was extricated), and since the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) lacks the E484Q mutation, the line you quote is now rendered incorrect and will need to be removed in its entirety along with the two references, one of which is only a repeat reference. I appreciate you drawing my attention to this. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, line deleted along with the two references. Have checked carefully that the 2 references were not used elsewhere in the article. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2_Delta_variant&oldid=1046949081"