Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

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.