Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Great job everyone!

Great job everyone! Thanks for getting it out literally minutes from the press release! :) Kylerschin (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

KUDOS! I've been adding bits to the omnibus November timeline which can be used. kencf0618 (talk)

Omikron cases on flights to the Netherlands

Under History it says "the Dutch health ministry estimated that about 85 [...] were infected with the virus." This suggests, in the context of the Omicron page, that these were all Omicron cases. However that is not true, the virus variant of those cases has not been determined yet. 2A02:A465:8E35:1:ADC3:FC05:2E61:3D9B (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"South African variant" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect South African variant. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 27#South African variant until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Where can I find Case Data?

Hi Guys, Great work on the article. Where can I find case data by county for this variant, so I can make a map like the one I’ve done in other variants like this

Countries with confirmed cases of Beta variant as of 25 June 2021
Legend:

  1000+ confirmed sequences

  250–999 confirmed sequences

  100–249 confirmed sequences

  10–99 confirmed sequences

  2–9 confirmed sequences

  1 confirmed sequence

  None or no data available

TapticInfo (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@TapticInfo: maybe in the sources here if they are reliable. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ftrebien: Thanks TapticInfo (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@TapticInfo: The other articles about variants seem to stick to GISAID and Pangolin as reliable sources, probably due to their work on checking individual reports. Maybe it's interesting to use them as a basis and add other sources only when needed. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

TapticInfo, thanks for all your hard work with the choropleth maps. I'm rather curious about your criterion for shifting from the number of cases to per capita. kencf0618 (talk)

Do we have reliable enough sources to write that this variant looks less pathogenic than the others?

Main article: SARS-CoV-2_Omicron_variant § Symptoms

Apokrif (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No. kencf0618 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line of table on omicron detections

The world total comprises 9 countries, not 8; please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.170.191 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

All four initial cases reported from Botswana occurred among fully vaccinated individuals.

Should this be All four initial cases reported from Botswana occurred among fully vaccinated visitors.? Since the four individuals are not natives of Botswana. --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:55F3:F0D1:C395:CA42 (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Source here. --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:55F3:F0D1:C395:CA42 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Identifiers

B.1.1.529 and Omicron are currently in the article. There should be other names, from the other logging databases, and possibly other codenames besides Omicron (VUI-xyz or VOC-xyz for example?) -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

When they're there, I'm sure they will be added; and also to the Wikidata item SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (Q109739412). -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, got some new identifiers here: https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/ The GISAID clade identifier for Omicron is GR/484A, and the Nextstrain clade identifier is 21K. -- The Anome (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have now created the property proposals Wikidata:Property proposal/GISAID identifier and Wikidata:Property proposal/Nextstrain identifier on Wikidata, to contain this information on the Wikidata entities for this and other relevant articles. -- The Anome (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful for readers who are not in this field, to provide links to an article that explains the nomenclature for the mutations as well as the variants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKN1 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

in denmark and austria

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/omicron-two-denmark-returnees-from-south-africa-test-positive-for-new-covid-19-variant.html

https://www.stol.it/artikel/chronik/erster-omikron-verdacht-in-oesterreich-aus-nordtirol-gemeldet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Omicron Timeline

Should the Omicron Variant have its own timeline? kencf0618 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to remind myself that this article was begun yesterday... I began Timeline of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant minutes ago, and it strikes me that it can, and should, be timed to the minute, press release by press release. (I also began the original timeline on the pandemic the day they shut Wuhan down, so I've some experience in this matter.) kencf0618 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This article from April 21st, 2021 states that variant B1.1.529, now named "omicron", was found in Hidalgo, Mexico and was considered a local variant. NEVER MIND, article has been edited to correct the designation of the variant found as actually having been B1.1.519 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.79.209.54 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We need more reportage. kencf0618 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Travellers with it in Botswana

According to the Government of Botswana, it was travellers who had it there first - not local residents. --2001:8003:DDB1:C600:E4DA:3B11:9302:2016 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say international travelers. kencf0618 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Pathogenicity

Milder disease than other variants (symptoms include body aches, fatigue and slight cough). Rapid heart rate also possible. 2601:543:8101:F950:6B:F70C:577:AA64 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed. kencf0618 (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

more countries should be included

If this variant was detected with people coming from Malawi, Madagascar and Egypt -as the article claims - then there were cases there of this variant. Why are these countries not listed in the "Confirmed cases by country"? The person must have caught it where they originated from. I can understand if someone flew from South Africa and had a lay over in one of these, but in these cases they did not fly South Africa to Madagascar to Germany for example. I think if the map is put in then this should be marked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Because for example the Egypt case was detected in Belgium, not in Egypt. Belgium is listed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

BUT it must have been in Egypt even if it was not confirmed and tested there (in that case it is not so clear). But anyone in Malawi that then went somewhere else and was detected with it must have had it in Malawi too. So I know this screws up the calculations for the table adding up the numbers. BUT for the map - it could be added.

BTW now cases in Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Deducing the infection site like this is not straightforward. The person coming from Egypt could have been there in a connecting flight or could have stayed in Egypt only briefly and caught it somewhere else earlier. And if the case was detected a few days after landing, then the person could have caught it on the flight or at any of the airports. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Misleading article

The article here is misleading:https://theconversation.com/travel-bans-arent-the-answer-to-stopping-new-covid-variant-omicron-172736

How can they say that travel bans are not effective? Travel bans - alongside other measures - slow down or stop the spread.49.178.168.249 (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The title says "not the answer", it doesn't say "not effective". However, a reason for the ineffectiveness is given in the text of the article: "But Omicron has already been detected in other regions, including the UK, Germany, Israel, Hong Kong and Belgium. So while a travel ban on southern African countries may slow the spread and buy limited time, it's unlikely to stop it." A nearly complete lockdown of all borders - and intracountry borders between regions, towns, villages, suburbs, China-style - would be effective if the whole world were a dictatorship. But it's not. The article as a whole gives the author's arguments for why a travel ban is "not the answer".

More to the point: The Conversation is generally considered reliable as far as I know, and the text used in this Wikipedia article from the source seem to be a fair summary of key points made in the source. Boud (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Omicron findings

Hello everybody. I found that in a article on Haaretz, there were twelve suspected cases of Omicron. I had to edit. Link: https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/top-israeli-health-expert-covid-vaccine-reduces-severe-illness-in-omicron-cases-1.10421310 Ant1234567 Also, I discover that Austria has a suspected case from Reuters. Link: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/austria-reports-first-suspected-case-omicron-covid-19-variant-2021-11-28/ (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

PCR tests

Pcr tests can not tell you any variants. Wikipedia's become a platform of misinformation 105.12.1.238 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Due to a coincidental side-effect, already existing tests can detect the omicron variant in this case; see [1] -- The Anome (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Delta variant

How good is this vaccine? Even the delta variant is not covered by the vaccine. This is also not discussed in the delta variant article.49.178.168.249 (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Which vaccine? kencf0618 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Covid Vaccines. The one we have so far.49.178.203.107 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." The studies of vaccines vis-à-vis Omicron shall be cited as they are announced. kencf0618 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ómicron

La nueva variante del COVID-19,puede llegar a hacer mucho más superior a las ya conocidas por nosotros para mi yo siguiero que todos los países q aún no hayan registrado casos relacionados con la nueva variante que vayan poniendo medidas porque puede ser cuestión de horas para que la variante llegue a otros países donde aún no hay casos ejemplo : Costa Rica , Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, México, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Perú, Panamá, Educador, Cuba, Jamaica, etc.... Tiene que estar listos y ojala que este mensaje llegue a manos de algún presidente Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oficial 89 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Por supuesto.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

Please change +Also the omicron variant may be more infective than other variants+ to +Also, the omicron variant may be more infective than other variants.+

Specifically, add a comma after 'also' since it's at the beginning of a sentence. ~~Beansohgod (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Beansohgod.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

are antibody, antigen, PCR tests affected?

is there an impact on later flow tests, Roche antibody test, PCR tests? as in do they detect omnicron or not? or do some essays need to be adjusted? cannot find this information anywhere right now. 2A01:4B00:85FD:D700:A5A6:2CF0:693E:4D44 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Check the diagnosis section. kencf0618 (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Could someone please adjust the wording in the diagnosis section? It says "Rapid antigen tests are likely not affected." I don't know whether this means the tests show positive for covid if the person has omicron, or if it means the tests do not detect omicron and show a false negative for covid if the person has omicron. I suppose it probably means the tests likely still work; would someone please verify this and then I suggest changing to "Rapid antigen tests would likely still work", or other wording that makes it clear. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong

In the article Hong Kong is said to have reported one case. There have actually been two, from the very moment it was announced that the B.1.1.529 strain was detected in their samples.[2][3][4][5] On the other hand the territory has also ban travel from southern Africa.[6][7] 1.64.47.144 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done 2402:3A80:6C5:CAF9:ED2B:9972:C275:302F (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021 (2)

In the statistics table, why do Japan appeared twice? 2402:B400:444C:5AC0:6D5C:A4B2:35FC:CF5E (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Fixed here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

in france

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/29/covid-omicron-variant-live-updates/#link-CIUQRETKZRFSXLZBXY2Q2BTCBI

8 cases suspected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it seems France is waiting on the results of 8 cases. [8] SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE. For anyone who proposes coloring France in this article's map to indicate the number of cases in France once it exceeds 0, please color French Guiana the same. Many people forget that French Guiana is part of France. Georgia guy (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

As Hong Kong is part of China? Surely we can color French Guiana differently as we can color Scotland or or other regions of a country differently. How do we decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Algeria is no longer one of the overseas departments and regions of France (French: départements et régions d'outre-mer), whereas French Guiana and Réunion are to this day such. kencf0618 (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

NOW that France has confirmed a case in Réunion it is relevant:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/nov/30/covid-news-live-who-warns-omicron-poses-very-high-risk-new-variant-detected-in-at-least-a-dozen-countries?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-61a5e44e8f08ccaa4131a852#block-61a5e44e8f08ccaa4131a852:

Read more

FacebookTwitter 2h ago 08:45 France confirms Omicron case on Réunion One person has tested positive for the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus on the French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion and six of his contacts are being tested. That makes it the first confirmed French case.

Official researcher Dr Patrick Mavingui said the person was a 53-year old man who had travelled to Mozambique and made a stop-over in South Africa.

The patient, who returned to La Reunion some two weeks ago, is in isolation, Mavingui told local French media.

Reuters report French government spokesman Gabriel Attal Attal confirmed the case. “Six of his contacts have been put in isolation, three coming from his family circle and three from his professional circle,” he told Europe 1 radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please add Reunion to the Confirmed cases by country table. Thanks. Sciguy999 (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Nu and xi variants

What happened to nu and xi variants?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• nu would probably be confused with new, and xi probably to close to Chinese leaders name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.122.210 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Credit for this reasoning, at least on Wikipedia, goes to (AFAIK) The Anome at Talk:Variants of SARS-CoV-2#"Nu" Omicron variant. Pity we can't include these quite reasonable guesses in the article unless there's an external source, and if there's agreement that it's notable information. Boud (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  i've found it being discussed here: https://www.news18.com/news/world/why-omicron-not-nu-or-xi-who-says-two-greek-alphabets-jumped-to-avoid-stigma-4492670.html 87.67.194.41 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Was also confused after seeing multiple sources refer to this as Nu, also do we need to protect this page from vandalism? There should be a default anti-misinformation mechanism to get attention on this topic, right? Daesin (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  If vandalism has been a problem, one may request article protection at WP:RFP. The articles of the Delta and Alpha variants are currently protected, those of Gamma and Beta are not. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The avoidance of Nu & Xi is entirely in keeping with WHO nomenclature protocol. kencf0618 (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Which protocol? Does any evidence actually exist to support this statement? 109.249.184.203 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Nu and Mu variants are there in other countries.49.178.168.249 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"'Nu' is too easily confounded with 'new,' and 'Xi' was not used because it is a common last name," the WHO said, adding that the agency's "best practices for naming disease suggest avoiding 'causing offence to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional or ethnic groups."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/omicron-variant-why-who-skipped-nu-xi-for-new-covid-19-variant-1.5684453 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.83.56 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Nyt article. “ The W.H.O. skips forward two Greek letters, avoiding a Xi variant. ” article has responses from The WHO spokesperson on actual reasons why they skipped. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/world/asia/omicron-variant-name-covid.html Kitty4777 (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Nu re-direct

Go to SARS-CoV-2 Nu variant, which is a re-direct here. I support that the re-direct should be deleted because no one will know it as the Nu variant. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. I don't think people will be searching for a variant that doesn't exist, much less expecting it to redirect here. --Xarm Endris (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree and question whether there would be concensus on this because it was called "Nu" in many articles and sources online prior to it being skipped over for Omicron Daesin (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

May we add a redirect explanation using Template:Redirect with a little text explaining that there is no nu variant, but that greek letter was expected to be used for the next VOC? Like:

"SARS-CoV-2 Nu variant" redirects here. Nu was expected to be used for the next variant and therefore still appears in media. WHO decided to use omicron instead.

--ElLutzo (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable given the circumstances. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We should also explain its name. Apokrif (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with the redirects, why aren’t we just grouping Nu & Xi in their own page and discussing why they were skipped?

The section talking about skipping them is omicron centric (for good reason), but since omicron is such an expansive page, people who specifically want to know about nu & Xi aren’t getting value out of this section. The Greek alphabet is confusing enough and skipping letters makes it much less apparent/ approachable.

You’re getting articles upon articles written about both nu & Xi being skipped, which makes it a topic of significant interest completely outside of the omicron variant itself. Kitty4777 (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The section talking about Nu and Xi is brief and confined to the Nomenclature section as far as I can tell. The other article that I know of that covers this also does so briefly. Personally, I don't see much reason to expand either section or to change the redirects, even if they are a "topic of significant interest" at the moment. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Whereas the Omicron variant is reported from South Africa, it is important to note that the variant was first detected or recorded in Botswana and not Africa. Neither the science nor origin for the Omicron variant is clear or confirmed yet. Kumangtum Gibson Christian (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, I'm pretty sure Botswana is in Africa? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I also heard something similar on the news to what Kumangtum Gibson Christian said above. Also, a google search for "omicron botswana" brings up the Boston Globe with "How a Harvard-affiliated lab in Botswana became the first to identify the Om..." (1 day ago). I'm sorry I can't right now pull up the whole article or get a full citation but perhaps someone else could easily do that. It could have been first reported in South Africa, but before that recorded (sequenced) but not reported, in Botswana; at that time perhaps it wouldn't have been known to be a variant of concern. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

Please move the map File:Map of countries with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant cases.svg at the top of the article/page as its being placed in the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant pages.

I did it. Nico di devilo (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nico di devilo: You did it wrong. I did not say to change the template. Please leave it if you did not follow. I told to move it up not replace image at the template. You replaced it! 2402:3A80:1C44:43:4504:598A:C12B:9BA (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done  melecie  t - 09:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Melecie: Thanks but you also moved the text to lead, please move the text to the section. 2402:3A80:1C44:43:4504:598A:C12B:9BA (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done  melecie  t - 09:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

now in Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/nphet-confirms-case-of-omicron-variant-of-covid-19-found-in-ireland-1.4743877 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021 (2)

Two cases proved in Norway, source in norwegian here: https://www.nrk.no/vestland/omikron-varianten-pavist-i-oygarden-1.15753055

Please update the table with a row for Norway and source. 84.212.60.4 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - added the following related edit => As of 30 November 2021, the Omicron variant was reported to been spread to 20 nations, including the Netherlands which detected the variant there as early as 19 November 2021. - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Bitcoin price irrelevant

OK, there's a source that says that the price of assorted cryptocurrencies fell, but I can't see any actual link beyond merely happening at the same time: "Bitcoin itself has been under pressure since .. earlier this month", i.e. the effects of the most recent Tether magic money tree pump were wearing off. It's been shown repeatedly that the price changes of Bitcoin in particular are far more around such pumps and - on a more short term level - 'Barts' to burn margin traders rather than anything in the real world, short of things like China banning mining. This is not that. Lose it? --13:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Lovingboth (talk)

Cryptocurrency is a risk asset too. Show us particular pumps and whales and you might have a point, but as it is markets are a sea of red everywhere due to Omicron. kencf0618 (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think bitcoin and omicron are relevant to each other; furthermore, the article says bitcoin, but the article itself not once actually mentions bitcoin's value falling (only oil companies, it seems). Beansohgod (talk)

I've added another citation. Market is a market is a market. kencf0618 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds silly, but there are sources reporting it. We should go with what the sources say. If you can find a few source that contradicts this, then we can consider changing or removing what it says in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Tree depicting the Omicron variant

Omicron variant and other major or previous variants concern of SARS-CoV-2 depicted in a radial tree derived from NextStrain on 2021 Nov 26

I created this tree (derived from a visualization I generated using NextStrain) and wonder if you all think it might be helpful in contextualizing Omicron's evolutionary position in the SARS-CoV-2 lineage? — soupvector (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Soupvector: I like that, I think it's useful to show that this isn't in the delta cluster. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks useful and appropriate. Several different sections could make sense. In the Epidemiology section (the evolutionary tree is related to epidemiology)? or Characteristics (the characteristics relate to evolution)? or Classification (the classification is evolution-related)? Boud (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Omicron variant and other major or previous variants concern of SARS-CoV-2 depicted in a tree scaled radially by genetic distance, derived from NextStrain on 2021 Dec 01

I have updated the tree using the data set curated by Emma Hodcroft and available here on NextStrain, now scaling by genetic distance rather than time (which is the NextStrain default, used in my prior version above). I hope this seems like an improvement - it's more obvious now (i) how homogeneous Omicron is, and (ii) how long its branch is from the rest of the tree. I defer to others about whether/where to include. — soupvector (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Omicron in USA?

Hi, I just want to know about Omicron. I am a person who researches about Omicron. Today, I found a shocking fact. Would America have more Omicron cases? I found it on the Statistics section, where I edit the most. I feel a bit shocked to see that. Ant1234567 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The references have been provided there. — soupvector (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Map colour unclear

The 1-9 cases colour code on the map is too light and quite indistinguishable from the 0 cases colour code from the map, making it inconvenient to see from a small mobile screen. Is it possible to darken the contrast of the shades of red on the map? (under statistics section) 111.65.61.13 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Statistics

Resolved

Table with countries: 3 omicron cases were confirmed in Switzerland (2.12.2021 at 10:00 a.m.). Source: Swiss government and BNO Nd.Eckert (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, added. In the future, please provide a direct link to the exact source. I found one via google, but an edit request will typically be denied if it does not contain the exact source link. RN1970 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Autapomorphy?

The intro uses the words "novel and autapomorph", but there's no mention of autapomorphy anywhere else in the article, and no WP:MEDRS cites are provided to support it. Can someone take a look at this, and fix it one way or the other? -- The Anome (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I see it. I'll look into it, but I'll give the original author (or anyone else, really) at least two days to link a source before I ask for it to be removed. Thanks a bunch. Beansohgod (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to autapomorphy for now, and added a BMJ cite for "novel". I can't find anything to support the autapomorphy claim, even after extensive searching. -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Links to Countries in Table

I was wondering if it was possible to add links to the countries' articles in the table if we can do it. If it is possible, I don't have the expertise to do so, so maybe someone with more brain cells could do it. ℂ𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕂𝕚𝕞𝕓𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I changed it. For some reason someone decided to use {{flagu}} instead of {{flag}}. PBZE (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ℂ𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕂𝕚𝕞𝕓𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

finland map

Finland is in the table, but not on the map. m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done (but not by me). The map is part of another page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_countries_with_confirmed_SARS-CoV-2_Omicron_variant_cases.svg and updated by its creator from the bnonews.com tracker. As such it can be a bit behind the latest news reports (should be 1-2 days max).

The tree that is scales radially by genetic distance

The main picture says, "Omicron variant and other major or previous variants concern of SARS-CoV-2 depicted in a tree scaled radially by genetic distance, derived from NextStrain on 2021 Dec 01" all of the major, noteworthy "spikes" are labeled, red is omicron, orange is Delta, green, blue beta and gamma (I'm going from memory), on the right of I believe the green one is a yellow spike, it isn't addressed what this is at all, and as far as I can't tell there's not way to look up what variant this yellow "spike" even is. Is there a way to clarify this? 24.0.180.49 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That's likely Lambda but might be Mu. I didn't label everything for clarity's sake; those interested in further details can click the tree, look at the description information, and click the NextStrain link there (or this specific configuration) to investigate details. — soupvector (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Timeline Deletion?

Timeline of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has been nominated for deletion. I've already made my argument, so weigh in if you'd like. kencf0618 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks kencf0618 for letting us know on this page. I've just added my comment over there. Really hope it doesn't get deleted. SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. The contrast between the slow build of Swine Flu and it is... really something. kencf0618 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Aviation restrictions

We need a table for the plethora of aviation restrictions. Several countries have implemented such against... several southern African states by now? Which? We need more detail, and in table format rather than prose, methinks. kencf0618 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably Travel during the COVID-19 pandemic would be a better place. But requirements changed often even before omicron. The IATA Travel Centre is usually a good reference for the current situation, but there may be some delays. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That's an excellent reference, but not Omicron specific, which is what we're here for. I'll dig around a bit... kencf0618 (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kencf0618: This will probably be outdated in a day or two. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Nigeria detection in October

The Epidemiology section, and the timeline (on a separate page) both report Nigeria having detected the variant in October (found by re-analysing older samples, I think). I also heard this reported on the CBC radio news today. I suggest also mentioning this fact somewhere in the History section. If the History section is, in a sense, a summary of the Timeline page, then I think this fact is important enough to be included, being as far as we know the earliest detection. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen this retracted. Let us wait until the situation becomes more clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the result of an inaccurate press release, corrected shortly after (it was actually in the article's History section, but was removed once the local authorities+media corrected the error). It was a variant of concern, but Delta rather than Omicron. RN1970 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

These are the guys to follow: https://www.krisp.org.za/ngs-sa/ngs-sa_network_for_genomic_surveillance_south_africa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kencf0618 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, for South Africa and to some extent other southern African nations (where they're involved, too), but not for Nigeria where they have no involvement. RN1970 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021 (2)

Please allow me to edit too. Talha Arain 07 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Primer caso de la variante en México

México confirma el primer caso de ómicron en el país. [[9]]--Mr LuiXan (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Added to Statistics table. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

singapore

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-says-monitoring-situation-after-news-of-omicron-detection-in-singapore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - The 2 cases for Singapore have been added to the statistics chart citing The Straits Times as kindly provided above. SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Well-intended, but as described they've only been detected via S-gene dropout, which is found in a couple of variants (many nations have many of those that are awaiting confirmation). Hence "preliminarily", pending results from sequencing which is required for confirmation of Omicron vs. other variants with S-gene dropout. Quote:

"Their PCR test results revealed the presence of S-gene Target Failure, which may be associated with the Omicron variant, the ministry added. MOH said the National Public Health Laboratory is conducting whole genome sequencing to confirm if the two cases had indeed contracted the Omicron variant."

Sequencing can take a week or more, but Singapore tend to be pretty fast and I suspect we'll know within a few days. RN1970 (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted RN1970. I missed that in the main article I was relying on. I never followed the link embedded in the article which made it very clear that the 2 cases had not been confirmed. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Singapore

Singapore has 4 Omicron variant cases in total now. Please update it. JJ09012011 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Please could you suggest a reliable source for this claim (is there one in Malay that could help?). I have just searched and have not been able to identify any source to back up the claim of 4 Omicron cases. There were news reports of 2 "probable" cases, but they are still awaiting confirmation. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Request For Edit Page

Hello Everyone !

Allow me to edit too. I will do my best Talha Arain 07 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This page is semi-protected, which means you must be logged in for a certain amount of time, as well as make a certain amount of meaningful edits, so come back later when you've gotten a few edits under your belt. Get out there, Wikipedia's massive! Beansohgod (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Talha Arain. If you have ideas how to change the page, just tell us your ideas on this talk page, and then if other editors agree, they can make the changes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Update India in stats. Its 3 now.

References

2402:3A80:6FD:B303:55D:9023:51BF:FF3E (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done It is now 4, since it was updated. Severestorm28 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Current event template

I support that any article with the {{current}} template must have it removed once the newest edit is more than 10 minutes old. Any opinions anyone has on this?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This obviously does not make any sense. The template says that the article is not necessarily up to date, and the fact that it has been last edited less than ten minutes ago does not change this. Additionally, a logical fallacy would be that it is impossible to add the template since it would have to be immediately removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And re-added. And removed. And re-added... -- The Anome (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

While that's an interesting metric, it's not a useful one. The rate of editing activity undoubtedly correlates with page views. Furthermore this is going to be a current event for a long, long while... kencf0618 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

From the documentation: Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day; occasionally longer. I think this should stay as long as Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. How I understand those two together is: it should stay there while we see significant changes to the event most days. Case counts are not so significant, but perhaps first detections in specific countries are. I'd say it would stay on for a few more days, but then it may have to be re-added as the variant is fully characterized by scientists. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it can be removed soon if not now, the only "recent" thing that probably qualifies is the characteristics of the virus its self like transmissibility, severity and immunity resistance. Just the numbers don't likely qualify as per the current consensus for the pandemic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it, its now been 10 days and most of the "news" about it is no longer new. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

Please add " As per the recent study Omicron variant increases reinfection risk by three-fold. " under SARS-CoV-2_Omicron_variant#Possible_consequences. 2402:3A80:6E8:2C90:59DA:42FC:1E3D:B10E (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

References

2402:3A80:6E8:2C90:59DA:42FC:1E3D:B10E (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. Lets wait for actual peer reviewed, non preliminary studies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether it has a higher reinfection rate in vaccinated people because the vaccine is not specific to the variant, but otherwise is similar to other variants. In other words, maybe the variant is no worse than other variants but the vaccine is not as good for it. In other words, I think we just don't know yet. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing reinfection (SARS-CoV-2 infection after prior SARS-CoV-2 infection) with breakthrough infection (SARS-CoV-2 infection after COVID-19 vaccination). The preprint / news story linked above is about reinfections, not breakthrough infections, so it's not about vaccination. — soupvector (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I did have it wrong. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Map suggestion

The colors in the map are not easily discernible for people with color deficiencies. Would it be possible to use different colors or add a pattern to help make each area more distinct? 71.231.47.78 (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Which ones would you suggest? Beansohgod (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Darker shades of red since 100-999 is the largest catergory, it can be shaded dark red while the others can be shaded slightly more darker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:6001:B643:F835:EB44:65A6:9284 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This website allows for an image to be uploaded and viewed with a variety of simulated color deficiencies: https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/ As someone with altered color vision, I don't feel confident enough to say which colors are best, I just know that high contrast and patterns are helpful.2601:603:4E80:2F30:0:0:0:C51A (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not all Norway cases are confirmed

Norway only have 19 confirmed cases of the omicron variant. Source: https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2021/antall-bekreftede-omikron-tilfeller-per-3.-desember/ 90.230.55.237 (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for reporting this error. It seems AP misreported an earlier NIPH news item. I have updated the number to 19 as per the latest government report. CasparV (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statistics

Did anyone notice that they added +10 to UK, but increased the total by just 1. 2601:543:8101:F950:4466:69EF:1151:DE32 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the total row; it doesn't update automatically. CasparV (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Zoonosis

It's about time we write about the speculations that Omicron, rather than arising in immunocompromized humans, is a zoonosis (in this case, human infects animals, where it mutates, and animals infect humans back -- as it happened with minks in Denmark). E.g., [10]. Anyone feel up to the task?--Nø (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not impossible, but highly speculative at this point. If added anyway, it is important that it is part of a balanced section that includes other theories that are weighted based on evidence and what most experts suspect. Most experts are pointing to long covid in an immunocompromised patient as the most likely origin (e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Unlike the zoonosis theory, the theory of long covid in an immunocompromised patient actually has some direct and indirect supportive evidence: Omicron is still heavily aimed at human receptors (unlike what we'd expect if it had spent enough time in animals to accumulate all the mutations; we saw this in changes aimed at mink's ACE2 receptors), it has RNA-inserts that likely are of human origin, another small RNA insert that likely originates from common cold or HIV (i.e., likely happened in person that also had one of those infections), and we have earlier cases where long covid in a HIV patient resulted in an unusually large number of mutations, just as seen in Omicron. RN1970 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Omicron Q’s

Hello. I would like to ask these questions about Omicron: 1. What is the R0 of Omicron? 2. How transmissible is Omicron when compared to Delta? Is it more transmissible? 3. What is the risk of being reinfected from Omicron compared to their variants? 4. Does Omicron has a mutation that is from the cold (making it a resemblance)? 5. What is the exact number of mutations does Omicron have? 6. Is Omicron dominant in South Africa? 7. How frequent does new cases double with Omicron with Delta compared? (explain in every _____ day(s). 8. Does Omicron possess severe symptoms? 9. Will Omicron dominate the world and displace Delta? 10. Would a variant be more contagious than Omicron and develop into a new variant from Omicron? (Q’s above)

Note: I wrote those 10 Q’s because I would ask more about the variant. I am researching news articles about the variant. Ant1234567 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

3. A study shows 3 times.

8. The gas majority of Omicron cases have no or very mild symptoms.

9. Definitely possible, if the world does not take action.

10. Likely. That's what viruses do. JJ09012011 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Singapore: Wrong information

Singapore has 4 Omicron variant cases, not 2. Please update it. JJ09012011 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? CasparV (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Singapore has two confirmed cases (the ones mentioned in the earlier entry on this talk page have now been confirmed). The two more recent cases are people that only passed through Singapore, going from South Africa to Australia and Malaysia. They were first detected at their end-station and are included under Australia and Malaysia in the table. The table only has countries where it was detected, not (presumed) country of origin or places people travelled through. RN1970 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

GISAID is now showing 2 cases for Singapore. I've taken a screenshot just in case. I've added the repeat source Ref. 65 ("gisaid-stats") to support this change. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a featured article?

I believe the article deserves to be featured. After all, it fully describes the subject and has so many footnotes! --Wasa Kawasaker (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wasa Kawasaker: I'd suggest checking out the process for featured articles at WP:FAC and WP:FACR If you want to propose the article. It outlines the process for you, instead of just one sentence that can be overlooked on a talk page. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It won't qualify for FA-status, there's too much churn in the article. Articles need to be relatively static before even trying to get FA-status. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

How could it be? Not much is even known yet. – ishwar  (speak) 04:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Another south African variant

I noticed. There was another South Africa variant earlier this year.49.178.168.249 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

South African variant (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Am I correct that so far, there have been no reported deaths from Omicron?

. 203.194.55.212 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

As of this writing, no. kencf0618 (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are. JJ09012011 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Steve Biko Academic/Tshwane District Hospital in Gauteng province, South Africa reported 10 deaths from Omicron up to Dec. 3, 5 deaths in adults over 60 and 4 deaths in adults 26-36. They assessed the child as dying from other conditions. John Hopkins data has 27 new deaths from covid-19 (most of which are probably Omicron) in South Africa for December 7.Dongord (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Since omicron is technically not its own disease, should we lump omicron deaths- if they occur- to the Covid death toll? Beansohgod (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Within the Omicron article, it will probably be useful to have a running total of confirmed omicron deaths as these become available at least until we can figure out if the vaccines and therapeutics work for it as well. It may take South Africa and other countries a while to sort out which deaths are from which variant.Dongord (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

India new cases update

India recently recorded the 5th omicron case , so kindly update the count for India

If you want more confirmations you can discuss with me @ Vedank98 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Source :- https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/1st-omicron-case-in-delhi-is-tanzania-returnee-new-variant-cases-now-5-in-india-101638684220600.html

References

Chile

Please add Chile to your statistics table. Sciguy999 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

More authoritative and informative source here. Except I don't speak the language so I can't verify if it meets the inclusion standards for this page. CasparV (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done (but not by me) CasparV (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Finland now 5 cases

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11942036 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The URL you provided as a source is a live news blog; can you give a direct link to the specific article? A source directly from THL's website would also be preferred. The latest info I can find from YLE lists 2 confirmed cases. CasparV (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Proper source: https://thl.fi/fi/-/suomessa-on-todettu-yhteensa-seitseman-omikronvariantin-aiheuttamaa-koronatartuntaa CasparV (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessarily gendered language in "Reported cases" section

This is a very minor issue, but the sentences I'm referring to read "[...] an unvaccinated woman who had travelled from Egypt via Turkey on 11 November [...]" and "A man in Leipzig, Germany with no travel history [...]". All other references to people correctly use ungendered terms like "individual" or "person". There is no need to specify gender here and doing so implies some significance where there is none. 132.147.105.64 (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I've now changed the entries to "person". Not really sure if I think it is important, but at least this brings some consistency to the wording used in the section. RN1970 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Add Estonia with 2 suspected cases in statistik section Omicron2021 (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 In progress I will. Ant1234567 (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fulfilled your editing request. Ant1234567 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Denmark has 183 confirmed cases

Hello, I just want to tell that from an France 24 article that Denmark has 183 confirmed cases of Omicron.

Link - https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20211205-denmark-reports-concerning-jump-in-omicron-variant-cases-of-covid-19 Ant1234567 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Another link https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2021/status-pa-omikron-varianten-b11529-pr-051221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omicron2021 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong calculated value or wrong formula?

I was checking the calculations in the "Epidemiology" section and they were all correct except for the one in this sentence:

a weekly multiplicative growth factor with respect to Delta of $\exp \left({\tfrac {21\%/{\text{day}}\ 7{\text{day}}/{\text{week}}\ 1{\text{week}}}{100\%}}\right)\approx 4.2$.

According to wolfram alpha,

$$\exp \left({\tfrac {21\%/{\text{day}}\ 7{\text{day}}/{\text{week}}\ 1{\text{week}}}{100\%}}\right)=\exp \left({\tfrac {(21)(7)}{100}}\right)\approx 4.349235\ldots$$

so why does the article use $4.2$ instead of $4.3$? Does the source say $4.2$? Mgkrupa 01:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed this. Thanks for the feedback! Jmv2009 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Denmark 183 - seems to be a rolling blog

https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2021/status-pa-omikron-varianten-b11529-pr-051221

is the link given, yet it says 183 as the omikron total. It seems we have a link not pointing to an article / page, but to a rolling blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has already been updated with cases confirmed by sequencing (32). The remaining have only been detected by the less reliable s-gene dropout in PCR test. Other countries only count those as possible and to maintain consistency in the table the same is done for Denmark. If you edit the table in the article this is also described in text next to the number. It's the same reason some people posted 50 for Norway a few days ago, including those only found via s-gene dropout in PCR test and not yet sequenced. Regardless, we'll get confirmation for the ones found via s-gene dropouts as soon as sequencing is done. Unfortunately, many countries don't provide those numbers, but a few do, as can be seen in BNO's tracker, including almost 50,000 possible in South Africa. RN1970 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's very interesting that the Danish link[[16]] points to the Statens Serum Institut. I think it's much more of a press release or news article ("Aktuelt og presse") than a rolling blog. I've had a go at crudely translating some of the text and it comes out as something like: "The snapshot in Denmark is the following: WGS confirmed cases: 32 Variant PCR detected cases: 151 Total cases: 183" and goes on to say: "The variant PCR test is now so secure in its detection of the omicron virus variant that a variant PCR detected case is counted as an omicron case. Therefore, the previously "suspected cases" are now listed as proven." So the SSI are treating PCR test-derived results as confirmed Omicron cases! SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Spelling Error: “Omikron” should be “Omicron”. Ant1234567 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Only if counting both sequenced cases (32) and cases only detected via s-gene dropout (151). This is not done for *any* country in the table and would make *any* comparison completely impossible. Then we'd have to add the almost 50,000 possible for South Africa, some 50 possible for Norway, 4 possible for Iceland, etc. Unfortunately, most countries simply do not provide this data. However, if people think it would be useful a solution would be to add another column for those cases to the table. RN1970 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a good idea RN1970, but I am not sure whether another column should be added to the table at this point. You're right about the figures in the case of South Africa (the 50,000+ probable cases listed on the BNO News tracker) it could serve as being a bit 'alarmist' and that's not really what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. I think we should stick to a proper standard across the board for confirmed Omicron cases. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: I see that said "probable" column has just been added by another editor. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

So in Denmark they make the assertion "The variant PCR test is now so secure in its detection of the omicron virus variant that a variant PCR detected case is counted as an omicron case. Therefore, the previously "suspected cases" are now listed as proven." (translated). However, more is going on than meets the eye here: With rapidly rising Omicron, non-Omicron SGTF incidence becomes irrelevant. This may make 1 or 2 false identifications, but that doesn't matter much anymore. Soon Omicron will show up in random surveillance. However, those are typically set up to be based on sequencing, which all in all takes about two weeks. This can be contrasted to PCR which sometimes is the first test done on a sample, e.g. within 24 hrs. With a rapid growth of this variant, one or two weeks delay gives a huge difference in numbers. When the sequence based surveillance gives 5.1%, the variant may already be dominant for a two weeks delay. This generated huge problems in communication with the public about where things stand. By the way, not all countries and not all labs use Thermo's Taqpath assays (which indicate the SGTF). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmv2009 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Nepal cases

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/nepal-detects-first-two-cases-omicron-variant-health-ministry-2021-12-06/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added to the list. --Gorbi (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Argentina case

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/latest-on-coronavirus-outbreak/argentina-reports-its-1st-case-of-omicron-variant/2439560 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added to the list. --Gorbi (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thailand first case omicron

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/thailand-detects-first-potential-case-omicron-variant-2021-12-06/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added to the list. --Gorbi (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Latvia omicron

https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/health/latvia-gets-its-first-two-omicron-cases.a433199/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added to the list. --Gorbi (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Russia has only 2 new cases, not 10, according to the source. 10 is the total number of "people who returned from South Africa" and "had tested positive for COVID-19."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-reports-first-cases-omicron-covid-19-variant-agencies-2021-12-06/

Olveyg (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I took care of it. Beansohgod (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Exponential math

The sentence "In the UK, a exponential growth rate of the Omicron associated S-gene target failure (SGTF) cases of 141% per week (a.k.a. a factor of exp(1.41) ~ 4.1 exponential growth per week) was detected" doesn't look like correct math to me, though maybe I'm just misunderstanding the wording. 141% per week looks to me that it should mean either a factor of 2.41 (most likely), or a factor of 1.41, not a factor of exp(1.41) or 4.1. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree the original source wasn't represented properly; I think even incorrectly.

Reading the source document, the "logistic growth rate" or "exponential growth rate" is *not* the log(growth factor), it's just the *weekly* growth factor (aka growth rate aka r -- mind you: not the same as R -- aka g, aka ∆, depending on where you're from). I've also attempted to clarify that this is not about the absolute SGTF growth; it is about the growth of the proportion of SGTFs in all (sequenced) cases.

The whole section is a bit of a mess btw, so I did some more work there. It can still use less biased info (looks like cherrypicking now), and a linguistic checkup.

~ CasparV (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The math is much clearer now. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just done an edit with edit summary "Attempting to clarify how exponential growth rates are presented." and self-reverted to allow editors to comment before making the change more permanently. You can find the edit in the page history. I'm trying to make the equations easier to follow. I suggest that it's easier for the reader if all the equations follow the same pattern, i.e. all exp's or all log's, except if one equation is given in both forms to show how they're equivalent. Perhaps exp is a little better than log since we're discussing exponential growth.

As a separate suggestion: should the word "logistic" be replaced by "logarithmic"? Logarithmic seems more correct to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to put a diff of my proposed edit. Here it is. What do you think? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the change is an improvement! My personal preference is using [$ln(x)$ and $e^{x}$] or [$log_{e}(x)$ and $e^{x}$], instead of exp(). And avoiding "100%×" in front of a calculation, as it's meaningless. A downside of using these math blocks inline with text is that they ruin the line spacing and therefore the legibility of the page, but I'm afraid writing them out in plain text is equally bad.

Regarding logistic vs logarithmic: they're different distributions so one shouldn't be inherently replaced by the other.

~ CasparV (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for liking my edit! But I see that the equations seem to have been deleted from the article, so I'm leaving that part as it is for now. OK, I see that "logistic" means something different from "logarithmic", but I don't quite see what a "logistic growth rate" of "141%" means. I did change a few words per my proposed edit ("were necessarily" rather than "had to become"). I'm OK with either log_e or ln. To me, saying "141%/100%" is OK as a way of emphasizing or reminding people that 141% is just 1.41. Alternatively, just skip all that and use 1.41 in the equation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Epidemiology - Omicron vs Delta

@Jmv2009: Hi, I noticed your recent edits on the growth of Omicron vs Delta, in the Epidemiology section. I wonder if it doesn't violate WP:OR (as I've had similar things removed for that reason), but more importantly I'd like to ask you to clarify the following:

• Re: "doubling time of 3.3 days with respect to Delta": what is a doubling time in respect to another variant? I could imagine the doubling time of its share of the total, but that doubling time is not a constant over time.
• Re: "which implies that SGTF was growing exponentially with respect to SGTP by a factor of 4.1 per week": I think the "per week" part here should be omitted; if your calculation is correct, 4.1 would be the ratio between both variants' growth rates - without a time dimension. If not, what would be the implication of this? In other words: what is interesting about this fact?

I have already adapted the text in some points to clarify that this is based on a single observation - the growth over 1 week - and not a long term trend.

Kind regards, CasparV (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• The idea is that after 3.3 days, the ratio of Omicron to Delta increases by a factor of 2. That should be a constant over time.
• The idea is that every week, week, after week, the SGTF/SGTP ratio increases by a factor of 4.1. So SGTF grows with exponentially respect to SGTP, by a factor of 4.1, every week. Or equilalently, log_e(SGTF/SGTP) increases every week by log_e(4.1). So log_e(SGTF)-log_e(SGTP) increases every week by log_e(4.1): The slope difference between the SGTF and SGTP on a log_e scale is log_e(4.1)/(per week). The per week is important (and is sometimes forgotten). Is it per day, per week, per month or per generation? (The person-to-person generation case is interesting, because it is a close proxy for the transmissibility, with caveats. The relative growth rate per unit of time can be relatively accurately determined, but it may depend on vaccination and reinfection status of the population, and it can be relatively accurately be used to determine when a variant becomes dominant. The generational interval scientists assume is different (UK : 6.4 days, ECDC : 5 days, SA ~ 4.2 days, NL : 4 days), and often not even explicitly stated, but can be deduced from their transmissiblity and growth rate.). This is needed then to deduce the transmissibility accurately).
• The other thing to look out for is the ambiguity of a growth rate per week, which can make it easy for data to be misinterpreted: A 200% relative growth rate per week could mean 200%+100%=300% (without compound growth), or it could mean (compound growth) 100%exp(200%/100%)=740%. The press has misinterpreted this (for the alpha variant).
• The growth of the variants is assumed to be independent which is a good approximation until asymmetric mutual immunity starts to play a role. Immunity that affects both variant by the same amount still keeps logistic growth behavior. The reason one mainly looks at relative growth is of course that it is more independent of the environment, which is assumed to impact both variants by an more or less equal amount. (See however e.g. for when this is not the case [17]) The consequence of this last assumption is that lockdown measures don't delay a new variant from becoming dominant (another frequented misconception). (Travel restriction as a reaction to a new variant don't have a significant impact either, for two reasons, but that's another story.)

Jmv2009 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that mathematically, lockdowns would indeed delay a newer variant from relative increase and from becoming dominant. I'm not sure how significant the difference is in practice. Suppose that of the infections an individual is going to cause, they cause, on average, half in less than h days after they were infected, and the other half in more than h days. When a variant is rapidly increasing, more than half of all the infections caused on a given day would be caused by people who had been infected less than h days ago, a time when the variant would be more numerous than it was h days ago. At that time the relative amount of the newer variant would also be higher than h days ago. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Coppertwig: I think I have to agree with both of you. :D Assuming two variants with identical generation intervals, identical sensitivity to lockdown, but different R: a lockdown would reduce both variants' R with the same factor, which reduces the incidence of both variants with the same factor, so dominance in incidence would not be delayed. But when considering dominating the prevalence instead, the higher-R variant would indeed be delayed in achieving dominance: as influx of new cases is delayed, existing cases carry more weight in the total distribution. However, I think all these stats until now have concerned incidence, not prevalence. CasparV (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

--

@Jmv2009: Thank you for your extensive reply, I really appreciate you taking the time to elaborate.

1. I understand what you mean now. I am not sure if the current article version has the most legible way to describe it, -- "A doubling with respect to B" to me doesn't immediately suggest "A ÷ B doubling" -- but I am not a native speaker so that could be the problem as well. I must also admit that I'm used to a notation of ln() instead of log_e() so that takes me a moment to switch over, but that as well could be me; I don't know your background (I'm a clinical epidemiology MSc student).
2. I agree on the frustration about vague use of additive and multiplicative percentages; I think an elegant solution is to prefer the word 'growth factor', which implies multiplicative, whereas 'growth rate' suggests additive but in this source appears to be used to mean multiplicative.
3. From the new addition, "461% short of being the majority strain" again doesn't make any sense to me; both what it means and why it's relevant.
4. The article could use more backstory on these calculations; especially on what it is you're trying to show. I think if *I* don't even get it, the article audience certainly doesn't. Consider WP:AUDIENCE and WP:OR: this is not the place to publish your work to fellow experts.
5. Kind request to use the reply to template on article talk pages so people get a notification.

CasparV (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jmv2009: This all boils to trouble people are having with exponential growth (and percentages). On the background there is also the confusion about logistic growth vs exponential growth, which is why I'm hesitant to link directly to that article. They are closely related, but they go into carrying capacity, etc. Here we are just talking about two strains growing independently with their own exponential growth rate, that's it. The difference in growth rate after a time then gives a multiplicative factor. There the concept of I am trying to explain it as clearly and extensively as I can, but I consider this still basic secondary school mathematics (or a close cousin thereof). It may be phrased in an awkward manner to match the context, and because for me doing this type of stuff is par for the course, which means I can accidentally skip matters when explaining. E.g. the 461%: How much integrated compound growth do you need to get from 1 cent to 1 dollar if the compounding starts immediately. The answer is 461%, as e^(4.61) is 100. I had already added multiplicative, thanks for your feedback!

Jmv2009 (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jmv2009: The fact that "integrated compound growth" yields exactly 1 result on Google suggests to me it's not my fault that I have no idea what you're talking about. This really needs to change. Not just here, but in the article. CasparV (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jmv2009: It's not thát hard to explain your work. At least mention your variables and units. *What* is 461% *what* short of being the dominant strain? Because 1% of cases is literally 9800% short of being a majority of cases: 1/(1+99) -> 99.0001/(99.0001+99). Are you perhaps using 'exponential growth' to mean specifically 'growth with an exponential function (e^x)'? CasparV (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@CasparV: Ok, let's try this, see where we end up. So with exponential growth, we need to look at the exponent, not the number resulting from the exponent(the 1%). The exponent corresponding to 0.01 is -4.61, or -461% (e^(-4.61)=0.01). So to get from that to 1 (=e^0), you need to change the exponent by 461%. So you need to accumulate (integrate) 461% of growth over time. E.g. at a fixed 4% growth rate per nanosecond, this would take 115 nanoseconds. Again, we are all the time assuming compound growth in the most "aggressive" way, so the growth already occurs within the each "discrete" time interval. So 200% growth would amount to exp(2)=738% growth (skipping over the percentage trivialities). We need to get away from the linear growth concepts that is still alluding to, not looking at the exponent. When you say, we still need 9800% more growth, you are not growing _during_ the growth: dN/di=N*4.61, giving exponential growth, assumes N is increasing during each time interval. This corresponds to dlog(N)/di=4.61. Don't use: N_i+1=N_i*(1+99). Both give a factor of 100 after a step of 1 in i. That's the difference of whether the growth occurs, and builds on, during the time interval.Jmv2009 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jmv2009: "with exponential growth, we need to look at the exponent, not the number resulting from the exponent". When you shift between these two parameters, whether in your calculations or in your logical reasoning, you need to write that down. Please, try to understand that when you say "200% growth would amount to 270% growth", that you've forgotten to write down a few important steps in your thought process. Which parameter you mean might be obvious to *you*, because it's in *your* head and it's your personal methodology. It doesn't make sense at all to people who try to understand you. I am not saying you're wrong or dumb, but you seem unable to take what's in your head and put it out there. I'll leave it at this and hope a third person can decide whether the article should be adjusted or if it's just me. CasparV (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@CasparV: Of course you are absolutely right.

Casually being able to shift between these parameters is crucial in understanding exponential growth, and being comfortable with it is almost a prerequisite for any discussion of it. Arguing at that level. To me it's just: Ok, we shall to go from Exp(-4.60) to Exp(0.00), and we are going to do the -4.60 to 0.00 in a linear way, at a rate of e.g. 0.21 per day. So it's going to take 22 days. To me it is as natural as saying we are at a phase now of i*-4.60 radians where i is the complex i. This is actually mathematically equivalent, but which is not going to help either. I now refer to the concepts of "log odds", which is what people are usually referring to. Anyway, thanks for you feedback. It does help. As always, it is hard for me to understand what other people don't immediately get. Jmv2009 (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC) That means that after those 22 days, it's going to be twice the number of cases with respect to was was projected without Omicron (minus a very small contribution due to Omicron already building up immunity in the population in those days). And getting much worse from there. Hopefully it is a relatively benign variant, but I don't think we know that at this point.Jmv2009 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jmv2009: thanks for your very interesting comments. Like CasparV, I have difficulty following what you say. Even in informal talk page discussion, may I suggest that every time you mention a quantity, you provide enough information to let people know what quantity you're referring to. For example, when you say "200% growth would amount to 270% growth" you're using the one word "growth" to refer to two different quantities. That doesn't work. At the very least, if you use different words or phrases, people might understand. If you use the same phrases consistently, e.g. "growth factor" and "growth rate", people might figure it out. Even better, you could begin with "Let x represent ..." or "I'll use the phrase 'growth rate' to mean ..." or "Suppose the growth rate of a varient is reported as ...". Saying "the exponent" doesn't help me a lot: I still wonder, what exponent in what expression? But even so, if you were to use the word "exponent" consistently through your discussion rather than switching to "growth" or something, it might be OK. In scientific articles, whenever I see an equation, I like (and expect) to see after it "... where y represents ..." and so on, describing every symbol in the equation except those already defined earlier in the article or extremely well-known quantities such as e or pi. Sometimes even e or pi are defined, even if they're used in their usual meaning, to avoid confusion because other scientific articles use those symbols for other things. Sorry, I hope I don't sound too critical. I'm OK with either ln or log_e.

@CasparV: I disagree. I think both the relative incidence and relative prevalence of two variants change due to lockdown. When there is very fast increase (without a lockdown), then if you go out and catch the virus from someone, you're more likely to have caught it from someone who themselves had only caught it 3 days ago, than from someone who caught it 5 days ago, even if for each individual, their chance of infecting someone else after 3 days is equal to their chance of infecting someone else after 5 days. This is counterintuitive, but can perhaps be better understood if we realize that exponential growth won't continue forever, and that when things eventually do change (a lockdown is imposed, or everyone becomes immune somehow, etc.) that many of the chains of infection involving longer times (5 days) will be truncated because they would have happened after the new situation began, whereas more of the shorter chains (with more 3-day turnaround times) would have succeeded in happening. So, under rapid growth, the incidence of covid caught from someone who's had it for 3 days is higher than the incidence of covid caught from someone who's had it for 5 days (whereas under a lockdown these would be similar). Since the new variant would be more prevalent 3 days ago than 5 days ago, then the incidence of catching the new variant would be relatively higher under non-lockdown conditions. In other words, because of the higher prevalence of infectious people with the new variant under non-lockdown conditions, the incidence of catching the illness from these people is also higher. The size of this effect depends heavily on the length of the effective infectious time: i.e. how long are people wandering around infecting others before they realize they're sick and how effectively do they then isolate themselves; or how long are they very infectious before their immune system kicks in and reduces the amount of virus present.

Instead of "A doubling with respect to B" it might be clearer and more correct IMO to say "doubling of the relative amount of A with respect to B", though it's wordier. Or maybe "doubling of the A/B ratio" or "doubling of the A to B ratio". Currently I don't see the phrase "with respect to" in the article, so maybe it doesn't matter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

India new cases update 6th dec 2021

India has added two more cases today from state of Maharashtra , kindly update the total count as 23.

Vedank98 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Source :- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/coronavirus-omicron-live-updates-india-and-world-december-6/liveblog/88110979.cms

 Done - Updated on the statistics table. In the end, I used a different source India Today because the title provided the new tally of 23 cases. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Mozambique government confirms cases

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/mozambique-detects-two-cases-omicron-variant-says-govt-2021-11-30/

I cannot read the article as it is behind a paywall - can someone else check. Reuters is usually reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't access the Reuters article either. It's dated 30 November 2021, so it might not be an update on the two suspected cases. I noticed that the 2 suspected cases are not listed on BNO any more, yet we're still citing it in the table (as Ref. 73) for Mozambique. Perhaps we should use this reference for the Ministério da Saúde (MISAU). SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessed, but Mozambique may be already updated. Severestorm28 (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the above reference (Ministry of Health (Portugal)) to Col. 3 of the table (still listed as suspected cases). This reference supports the claim of the 2 suspected cases. Am not sure why the BNO tracker is no longer listing Mozambique at all? This will have to be updated properly once the cases are confirmed. SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

BNO News and suspected cases

In § Where can I find Case Data?, I suggested the sources in BNO News as possible sources of case data, if they were reliable. Now BNO News is used as a source for suspected cases in the statistics table. BNO News is not a well-known perennial source, and suspected cases might be considered rumour. In a moment of alert and confusion, wouldn't it be better to remove that column and stick to reliable sources? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fernando Trebien. I have concerns about this too. I think the addition of the 3rd column (suspected cases) should be discussion on this talk page in detail. I've just found a valid discrepancy for Mozambique which exemplifies the problem: the 2 suspected cases had been listed on BNO which was being cited in the table to support the claim. When I checked BNO, there was no longer any sign of Mozambique. So I have had to add a new reference in Portuguese! SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GISAID Data

In the statistics section, the text above it might want to say 2 December 2021, instead of 1 December 2021, as this is constantly being updated. If there is a way to code it to display the current day … then that might be helpful. 2601:543:8101:F950:7456:8F93:7084:DE53 (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Symptoms?

Have there been any reports of anyone dying who has tested positive for the omicron variant? How about coughing? Severe cough? ICU admission? Loss of taste or smell? If anyone knows of any, it would be good to add them to the article. The signs and symptoms section says "No unusual symptoms have yet been associated with the variant". There is a citation with date of 26 November for this. Perhaps after "variant" we should add "as of November 26", as otherwise it might no longer be true. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I heard (initially) that the symptoms were quite different and centred around things like extreme fatigue and a racing pulse, but not the usual loss of taste and smell. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• there is also Voice of America/South Africa Hospitals Jammed with Omicron Patients--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Short description wording

I have just noticed that the short description states: "November 2021 variant of COVID-19 virus". This is problematic since as far as I understand it, the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2. Should we not be indicating that Omicron is a variant of the virus SARS-CoV-2, so something like: "November 2021 variant of SARS-CoV-2". Another way of amending this would be: "November 2021 variant of the virus that causes COVID-19", but that is more long-winded. Please note this may need to be changed on Wikidata as well. All suggestions welcome. SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Just my opinion: this is not a problem, since "COVID-19 virus" obviously means "the virus that causes COVID-19" -- what else could it mean? And it's short, as a short description should be. Also, covid-19 is a well-known word, whereas some readers might wonder what SARS-CoV-2 is and have to look it up, whereas a short description should be quick and easy, not require lookup to understand. I see your point, that covid-19 is a disease, not a virus; but in my opinion, the phrase "covid-19 virus" nevertheless refers to a virus. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Coppertwig. I see what you are saying. This prompted me to take a look at what the short descriptions currently state for the other 4 main variants. I was surprised to see how much they vary:

• Alpha variant: "Variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19"
• Beta variant: "Variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus"
• Gamma variant: "Variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus"
• Delta variant: "Variant of SARS-CoV-2"

I still think it should be amended, but we will have to see what other editors think. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Consistency. It's fine with me however you want to do it. One option might be to edit all the short descriptions to include "the virus that causes COVID-19" as it does for Alpha. I'm not insisting on anything. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of redundancy in there too. While "Variant of the Severe acute respiratory syndrome Corona Virus-2 virus" indisputably has a certain ring to it, I'm all for consistency and simplicity here. kencf0618 (talk)

"November 2021 variant of SARS-CoV-2" @Coppertwig, Kencf0618, Sandstein, and Aeonx: I note that the short description has changed twice recently. I just thought I'd ping all those involved in this so far so that they could see what we had discussed. From my own point of view, I am happy with how the wording has settled today. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Short descriptions should be under 40 chars and help readers find the right article, but they need not be precise definitions. In that light, I think "[Date] variant of the Covid-19 virus" is most helpful to readers. They may not know what SARS-CoV-2 is, but they likely know what Covid-19 and a virus are. Merely repeating part of the title, "SARS-CoV-2", is not helpful in that regard. Sandstein 07:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm mildly against including date for the simple fact that the variants so far have not been specific to a date and the date a variant is relevant globally may vary, even using origin date or first detection date may be revised as further investigation and analysis is conducted. For simplicity and unambiguity, the short desc should be minimal and undisputable. I prefer variant of SARS-CoV-2, although variant of the COVID-19 virus I think is OK too. Aeonx (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Namibia cases

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/namibia-detects-omicron-coronavirus-variant-18-19-samples-2021-12-06/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Already added. Perfecnot (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I put in "as of November 26, 2021"

In Statistics it says "Confirmed[73] and suspected cases, as of 7 December 2021:". I'm a little uncomfortable with this because it looks to me as if it's saying that every row of the table has been updated or verified on 7 December. I would prefer something that reflects better the reality that some rows may have been updated on an earlier date and that it's possible that there's information out there that we haven't put in yet. I'd suggest one of these, instead of "as of 7 December 2021": "as of 7 December 2021 or earlier"; "with latest update on 7 December 2021"; or "updated 7 December 2021". The last one doesn't address my concern as well but is less wordy, and could in my opinion be interpreted to mean that some updates occurred on that day, rather than all rows being "as of". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps having separate columns, one for GISAID and one for "other sources" like for Delta, would make maintenance easier. But as for Delta, the two can diverge by many orders of magnitude, mostly because the "other source" quickly became outdated. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I messed up the title of this section; that was referring to a different date issue. Having a separate column to list the date of update of each row is also a possibility. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I like the idea of each column having a separate "updated as of" date. That could solve this. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Number of Omicron cases in Denmark and UK

Every living soul should be watching the number of Omicron cases in Denmark and the UK very closely. In Denmark, went from 9 cases which ended up being confirmed to 398 cases in a week. All this is occuring very consistency. Denmark detects Omicron cases pretty much right at the PCR test. For the UK this is partially true. Other countries are blind to this rapid growth, waiting for sequencing and other processing, taking weeks. IF they are sequencing. The first signal they may get is escalating cases. Omicron could be dominant in Denmark in what, 7 days? UK has very high antibodies levels. Appears to be even worse than in SA. UK growth could be faster than they published last weak, as growth rate may not have stopped increasing. Last UK number was factor of 1.30 (437/336) change in a day. There appears to be reinfection risk, but now the growth appears to be even higher in strongly vaccinated countries. What is this? Unfounded vaccine escape for transmissibility speculation. Associated transmissibility advantages are huge. Nobody wants to go back into very strong lockdown now, and there is no flattening of curves with that level of transmissibility. A factor of 2 in transmissiblity can be possibly be coped with, but a factor of 3-6, now way. Predictably, people are grasping for hope again that it is benign, but there may be no other option than praying it is. Don't know what WHO/CDC/ECDC/SSI/RIVM is doing. They must be seeing these transmissibility numbers as well. Waiting for fatality numbers?

lost, and sorry for the rant- Jmv2009 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Read the third paragraph in Characteristics which I added earlier today. No reason to relax or celebrate yet, but I'm a bit optimistic. Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, partly optimistic and now partly pessimistic as well. [18] --Fernando Trebien (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There's another issue: Even if Omicron is harmless (and that's not a small if), it's going to make Delta so much worse without distinguishing diagnostics, which only a couple of countries have in place. You will then have to isolate so much more people to have the same effect on Delta. Jmv2009 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"found a 41-fold reduction in the levels of neutralizing antibodies against the variant"

In this edit [19] by user:Ftrebien, this wording is found:

... found a 41-fold reduction in the levels of neutralizing antibodies against the variant

This may be directly from the source (I haven't checked), but I find this use of the word "reduction", while possible common in academic use, misleading or confusing. As I understand it, there were, by a factor of 41, less antibodies active against Omicron, compared to the number of antibodies active against Delta (or whatever the baseline is). To me, a "reduction" would in common English (disclaimer: it's not my native language) imply that antibodies were suddenly disappearing. I'm not sure how best to word this accurately and intelligibly.--Nø (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nø: Either a 41-fold reduction in neutralizing antibody activity or a reduction to about one-fortieth in neutralizing antibody activity are ok. Two things to consider:

• A 41-fold reduction is a reduction to 1/41 (one forty-first) relative to the reference level (1, corresponding to the ancestral strain). It is okay to write the quantity either way, so we can choose the most suitable one, although in scientific articles about vaccines it is usually written using the X-fold syntax or scientific notation (2.4 × 10^-2). One of the sources uses the wording the vaccine generated one-fortieth of the infection-fighting antibodies against Omicron which is ok to express the quantity, except that it is rounded for simplicity.
• 3 of the 4 ways referenced sources use to express what is reduced are less than ideal (probably even incorrect) from my understanding. The correct way (which I missed when reading it yesterday) is near the end of the second source (WSJ): A forty-fold loss in antibody neutralization. The other ways are omicron reduces virus-blocking antibodies by 40-fold and It found a 41-fold decrease in the levels of neutralizing antibodies. Antibodies elicited by the vaccine do not change suddenly, they are less active against the new variant because their molecular mechanism is less effective. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

South Africa and the 55,755 suspected cases

I don't know what to do about the entry for South Africa in the 3rd column of the statistics table. It now has a "Failed verification" tag, and rightly so. The current source points to BNO, which in turn points to GISAID, and there the trail abruptly stops. I don't think we will easily source this claim of 55,755 suspected cases. However, I have a hunch I glimpsed some articles that mentioned 50,000 suspected cases for South Africa. If we could identify one from a reliable source, we might be able to keep this. I still have doubts about the virtue of having this 3rd column, as it could be more trouble than its worth. I've just done down it trying to source as many as possible using proper sources so that they are no longer reliant on BNO. I've managed all of them except South Africa. What should we do? SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the better sources! --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My input from a scientific (not editorial) standpoint: If their PCR is e.g. 90% reliable for detecting Omicron, then from a pragmatic point of view, the associated "suspected" case be considered Omicron. Probably only Denmark is systematically testing all or many (positive) samples for Omicron with PCR (They appear to have something more sophisticated than SGTF), so they are going to be way ahead of the curve, because not blind. Especially if they are not all going to be sequenced in short order. Getting the last less than 10% right is only about pedantics, as there are no practical consequences. Jmv2009 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A reliable source providing an approximation using a proxy such as the SGTF would be OK, we can add a note explaining this. Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Since no one can verify this information and nobody knows where it came from, I took a bold step and removed it from the table. It can be re-added later if someone finds a good source for it. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this needed to be done. It can always go back in as and when we find a proper source. Thanks for taking the (WP:BOLD) step. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What does the phrase "dependent on reinfections" mean?

"The virus appears to be strongly dependent on reinfections."

It is my understanding that Omicron is more likely than other variants to reinfect, but the above sentence does not make this clear. Requesting this sentence be reviewed in context, then edited or removed. --Xarm Endris (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This sentence has now been reworded, thank you to User:Jmv2009. It now reads: "Omicron is frequently able to infect previously Covid-positive people." The new sentence retains the same two sources. SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

In this statement

These make it more difficult for antibodies to neutralise the virus,.”[29]

Please remove the comma from the quotation. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Comma deleted. I've set the answered parameter to "yes" for this semi-protected edit request. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

estonia

https://news.err.ee/1608426746/two-coronavirus-samples-sent-for-omicron-variant-confirmation - should be added as I indicated before in the same way and for the same reasons that Mozambique is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Estonia added to the table with 6 cases for Column 3 (other sources). Citing ECDC[20] update of 8 December. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Update Reference & Links

I update the cases. You guys update the link Talha Arain 07 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Talha Arain 07 I fixed the ref for the Pakistan case, but you seem to have made a lot more changes, many unreferenced, one change contrary to the headline of a pre-existing ref and a strange change to another pre-existing ref (Euronews->State Serums Inst). Can you please explain where you're getting your data from? Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

From here https://bnonews.com/index.php/2021/11/omicron-tracker/ Talha Arain 07 (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Talha Arain 07 Excellent! Can you tag the changes you have made based on this with a reference to this url? You'll need to use it multiple times, so you can use the 'ref name="refname"' format... thanks Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Talha Arain 07 the BNO source is proving problematic. Please be sure to follow the original source as far as you can. For example, with Denmark, the Statens Serum Institut (SSI) is not currently supporting the claim of 577 Omicron cases, but only 398. I have added a "failed verification" tag explaining this. Be cautious with the BNO statistics. SpookiePuppy (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The source used for Omicron cases is outdated; this is the latest report. The latest updates are listed here, with the relevant entries titled "Status pa omikron-varianten (B11529)" followed by date, i.e "pr. 09.12.21". At present, the number seems to be 796. Eik Corell (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Eik Corell. That's very helpful. I'll update it accordingly. SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Lack of citation in cases table

Some of the case numbers present on the table are unverified. I fixed Singapore, but I couldn't find a direct number for others, such as the United States, Russia, and even South Africa. Beansohgod (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

They were all from GISAID, which now has its own column to avoid confusion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up :) Beansohgod (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Are the cases presented by GISAID added to the other sources column, or are they independent from each other? Also, will we be having a total omicron cases count for those that can't do simple math (adding total GISAID cases and other sources)? Beansohgod (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Beansohgod (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

They are independent. It may be that a country does not have the specific PCR test that enables the SGTF method to detect Omicron, actively contributes genetic sequences to GISAID, and is not frequently covered by English-speaking media, so the GISAID count is the best estimate of the number of confirmed cases there, while the situation in another country may be just the opposite, and government data (usually reported by local media) are the best source for the case count there. Knowing this, what makes sense to me is calculating a grand total as the sum of the maximum case count per row, as shown in this old revision. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks Beansohgod (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Hong Kong reported their fifth case earlier today.[21][22] 1.64.47.144 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: GISAID are stating 14 cases for Hong Kong This number is far higher than the 5 cases in the request. SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

What's behind this discrepancy? 1.64.47.144 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We can't know for sure. It is possible that there was some human error when labeling entries in GISAID (which is a database of genetic sequences), but it is also possible that the health authorities in Hong Kong are using different criteria (say, PCR-based SGTF). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think part of the reason for this discrepancy is that Hong Kong is being reported as distinct from China. For example, GISAID are stating 15 cases for Hong Kong. However, the EDCD are attributing 14 cases to China. There are press sources, such as the SCMP which clearly state 5 cases for Hong Kong. It's difficult to know how to deal with this. Ideally, we should reduce the 14 unreferenced cases in Col. 3 of the table to just 5 and add a citation. SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: I just re-read that quote in the SCMP and realised how ambiguous it is! Do they mean 7 general cases of which 5 were the Omicron variant that were confirmed on Tuesday? SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Turkey case

https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/turkey-reports-1st-cases-of-omicron-covid-19-variant/news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.234 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The statistics table already has 6 cases for Turkey listed in column 3 (under other sources) citing Reuters. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 @ SpookiePuppy

I posted the link in the talk page at 20:39, 11 December 2021‎ 88.112.31.234 talk‎ 137,249 bytes +112‎ →‎Turkey case: new section undo AND when I look at the article dated 20:31 there is no Turkey in the column YET at 20:51 Turkey appears in the column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.234 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That's odd. I've just checked the page history, and Turkey was added to the statistics table yesterday (11 Dec.) at 20:51 (UTC). SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Omicron in Romania

So far, 8 cases with the OMICRON variant of the SARS-Cov-2 virus have been confirmed in Romania, the number of cases starts to rise. 109.101.119.76 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

New Omicron variant case confirmed in Romania

A new case of infection with the Omicron strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was confirmed in Romania, the Strategic Communication Group announced on Sunday, agerpres reports. Up to now, Romania has confirmed 8 cases of the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 variant on its territory. 109.101.119.76 (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

New OMICRON case in Romania

A new case of infection with the Omicron strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was confirmed in Romania, the Strategic Communication Group announced on Sunday, agerpres reports. Up to now, Romania has confirmed 8 cases of the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 variant on its territory. 109.101.119.76 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Dubai

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-omicron-cases-in-india-not-omicron-5-contacts-of-bengaluru-doctor-likely-in-the-clear-2640840 it appears there is a case in Dubai as the person was known to have omicron and then went to Dubai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia

Malaysia has a case of the Omicron variant. Please update the article. JJ09012011 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

it was added--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

request

The sentence "The variant is characterized by 30 amino acid changes, three small deletions and one small insertion" makes no sense. Deletions and insertions are mutations, i.e. changes in the viral genome, "amino acid changes" are not. They are phenotypic changes.

A consistent and accurate statement would be: "The variant is characterized by 34 mutations: 30 misssense mutations, three deletions, and one insertion."

<https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/04%3A_Molecular_Biology/4.08%3A_Mutation_Types>

Perhaps it would make sense to leave it as is except change "changes" to "substitutions"? I don't know. Also OK to leave as-is. It seems to me to be saying that 30 amino acids are changed to different amino acids. That does make sense (whether it's correct or not I don't know). Changing it to "missense" (just two s's in a row, I think?) would perhaps mean a codon (DNA or RNA element) is changed, which is kindof saying something different from changing an amino acid. A virus does contain amino acids; a mutated virus contains mutated (i.e. "changed") amino acids as well as mutated DNA or RNA that coded for the mutated amino acids. It's OK to mention only the amino acid changes -- it's like saying someone has red hair; you don't necessarily always have to say they also have genes for red hair every time you mention their hair. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The article also says "The Omicron variant has a total of 60 mutations..." It looks as if this might contradict the sentence with 30 changes etc. If it contradicts, I hope someone will figure out which is correct. If it doesn't contradict, perhaps the wording could be adjusted to clarify that it isn't a contradiction. It may be talking about two different kinds of things. I don't see how it can be "characterized by" a smaller number of changes if it also has 60 mutations, unless maybe some of the amino acid changes involve more than one consecutive amino acid??

The wording "characterised by" looks OK to me in the sense of mutations versus amino acid changes. It isn't saying that those are "mutations" (in the DNA or RNA).

But if there are other mutations besides the [ones associated with the] amino acid changes, then "characterised by" may be incorrect or exaggerated.

Also, I think the wording can be improved. I did a double-take reading it. It looked as if it was going to say something like "30 changes: 10 deletions and 20 insertions". It sounds to me that deletions and insertions are kinds of changes. But the numbers didn't add up so I had to go back and re-read it. I think it would flow better if the word "changes" were changed to "substitutions" as I suggested above. On thinking it over, I no longer think it's OK as is as I said above. It would also help to add a serial comma after the word "deletions" to remove this ambiguity. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

And another problem: the mutations section also says "Thirty-two mutations affect the spike protein", which seems to contradict the other sentence; I can't get 30, 3 and 1 to add up to 32. Again, I hope someone can correct this if it's wrong, or clarify why it doesn't contradict the other sentence. Thanks!! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

India new cases update 14th dec 2021

India has added two more cases today from state of Maharashtra , Gujrat and Delhi kindly update the total count as 45. Vedank98 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Source :- news18.com/news/india/coronavirus-live-updates-arvind-kejriwal-curbs-delhi-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-omicron-maharashtra-kerala-rajasthan-coronavirus-news-livenews-4551875.html

Possibly better illustration of mutations

I find this illustration easier to parse visually than the current ones in the articles about variants. It has horizontal text, the lines are straight, deletions are represented as slices in the bar that represents the gene. It also marks a few more regions, but not others that the current illustration marks. On the other hand, it does not represent the other genes, only S. It is probably not difficult to do something like this by hand if one knows the length and order of the genes.[23] As far as I understand, a mutation like E484A represents the change of one codon (3 nucleotides) encoding amino acid E to another encoding amino acid A [24] at position 484,[25] and position is proportional along the horizontal axis. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

S-gene: how to redirect?

S-gene currently redirects to SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant (via S gene). Should it now redirect to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant? Or should S-gene be a disambiguation page, listing both those variants? Or an article in its own right?

And what about S-gene target failure (aka S-gene dropout)? Redirect that as well (but to where)? Or another article in its own right? --A bit iffy (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It can be a disambiguation page and it can be an article of its own, as it is now relevant for more than one variant. The Alpha variant article cites SGTF a lot but does not say the basics. The S-gene encodes the coronavirus spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, and S-gene target failure is a signal in a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test that can be used as a marker. At the moment, it is caused only by the 69-70del mutation - deletion of 2 amino acids from the spike protein at sites 69 (histidine) and (70 valine) - present in Alpha (now almost extinct) and in Omicron (except sublineage BA.2). RT-PCR tests were designed to detect multiple targets to improve sensitivity and specificity, and when Alpha emerged, it was discovered that it failed to show a positive signal in this specific target. While this may decrease sensitivity and specificity somewhat, it was helpful because then the variant could almost always be correctly detected without expensive genetic sequencing. When Alpha, then Delta became dominant, essentially all sequences either had SGTF (when Alpha dominated) or not (when Delta dominated), it becomes useful again now while Omicron is taking over. But it doesn't work with BA.2. Some authorities decided to continue using SGTF though because BA.2 is currently much rarer than the main Omicron lineage (BA.1).[26][27] (prevalence of 69-70del, see "Daily Prevalence", also [28] for other variants) --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The early technical briefings of PHE have quite a lot about the SGTF method, especially briefings 3 to 7. Table 3 on briefing 15 expands on the idea to detect other variants as well. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The recent technical briefings also have information on SGTF, especially for Omicron in briefings 30 and 31 and the "S gene target failure and risk assessment" report. Before Omicron, a very small proportion of SGTF cases were actually of rare sublineages of the Delta variant. This shows how SGTF is just a quick and cheap proxy and that it is eventually incorrect (and that the chance of misdiagnosis is being monitored considering variant prevalence at any given time). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• "S gene" should not be hyphenated, and should be a dab or redirect to coronavirus spike protein since the S gene is the gene for the Spike protein. — soupvector (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove "stealth" variant

It was missed for a few months by testing focus and methodology, the only stealth aspect is why comprehensive sequencing had been lacking. Attribution of administrative failures aren't logically caused by a virus.5.80.211.69 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

[29]curious logical argument--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm guessing you haven't done SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing. The proportion of RT-PCR positive specimens that contain sufficient RNA for genomic sequencing is significantly less than 100% (and varies widely depending on the methods used for each) - so a SGTF approach gives an (imperfect but useful) answer significantly more often than the gold standard genome. I prefer the latter, but I don't cast aspersions recklessly. — soupvector (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Not milder in Denmark?

A senior researcher said in a news report: the narrative around South Africa is that Omicron may be much milder, whereas reports out of Denmark broadly suggest the opposite. I couldn't find any report about severity from Denmark, does anyone know anything about this? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Mention to the same at 3:05 here:

References

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/14/denmark-norway-rush-in-stricter-covid-measures-as-cases-soar

says danish situation re prior infection levels as does this one

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/14/south-africa-previous-infections-may-explain-omicron-hospitalisation-rate

talks about this not being milder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.234 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The data is wrong

The article says "Confirmed cases (other sources) as of 13 December" but for example the source https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/epidemiological-update-omicron-variant-concern-voc-data-11-december-2021 says "data as of 11 December 2021" and at other sources it is said "Retrieved 12 December 2021" --92.213.12.85 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It's very difficult to align the column "as of" dates with the many access-dates of the individual references in the statistics table. You are right to identify an issue here, but I do not know what the solution is, other than placing some small text (or a footnote) by the "as of date" explaining that they may not correspond with the references. I'm thinking of Col. 3 ("other sources") in particular here, if an editor updates just two or three countries but not the whole column, should the column header's "as of" date be updated? It's often not possible to update the entire column where the references are so diverse. Also, the updating of the access-date parameter within reference templates tends to lag behind. If you have another suggestion as to how this can be solved or improved, please feel free to add it here. SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Cannot Add

The table "World" sum row makes no sense.

200.68.169.19 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC) baden k.

Do you mean the statistics table? Are you suggesting that a recount is required? If so, which column or columns are out? Please note, the country row data has to be updated manually and the column totals too. If individual countries are updated but not reflected in the overall column totals, then discrepancies are created. These also have to be fixed manually! SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)