Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Beta variant

will the vaccine work on this mutation?

vaccination in question 37.188.135.59 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the improvement of articles, not for general questions about the topic. However, the answer to this question does seem like it should be part of the article. See the corresponding Vaccinee effectiveness section of the UK COVID variant page. I'm not an expert so I'm wary of trying to add any sources to this page on the topic. — Bilorv (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

This question by 37.188.135.59 may have been slightly ahead of its time! On 3 January 2021 (UTC), The Telegraph [[1]] reported that "there is 'big question mark' over the new strain" and that it (the South African 501.V2 variant) might be resistant to the vaccine. They mention Sir John Bell, regius professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford. We might need to address this in the article at some point. SpookiePuppy (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There is fresh preprint available concerning this topic, should we add it to article? --Unxed (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a pre-print, but its conclusions about monoclonal antibodies might be included. The bit about vaccines is speculative. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

Verbatim copy of Pre-print, primary source I removed from the article

9. Tegally, De Oliveira "Emergence and rapid spread of a new severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lineage with multiple spike mutations in South Africa "https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.20248640v1

insertion Jamplevia (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the wording of the map shoud be "suspected cases", not "suspicious cases". Suspected means that we think something has happened but we are not certain;suspicious means that we don't trust the data. I don't think it would be right for me to go ahead and change this page myself but I wanted to rais the issue.

Should the map, statistics section and chart be reinstated?

Hi all, earlier today (UTC: 31 December 2020) the country map, statistics section and chart of confirmed 501.V2 cases were removed from the main article by user:Theusernameistaken. It was quite a big edit of some 1,798 bytes. The reason given was that "it should not be perceived as a second pandemic." I am slightly concerned that the given reason does not cite any more specific Wikipedia policy because if this rationale was to be extrapolated to its logical conclusion, then we would probably not be permitted any dedicated articles on the specific variants of SARS-CoV-2 — for fear of diverging away from a singular pandemic. I would have been more content to see a reason such as "charts are unencyclopedic", as I have seen similar concerns raised in relation to long lists being deemed "unencyclopedic" on the talk pages of other articles. I, personally, really liked the Wikitable chart in the statistics section, and found it helpful. I was even going to propose one for the other variant page, although it would quickly become unwieldy! So I would like to see what you all think of whether it was right to remove the map, statistics section and chart and we should not be shy about seeking a consensus here. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowns und Kinder (talk • contribs)

Please bring the statistics section back into the article. Clowns und Kinder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I would agree - the map is not stating there is a second pandemic. The statistics and map do not suggest it is a second pandemic either. That seems to be the conclusion and interpretation of the individual who removed the information. Sreyes88 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to this discussion so far. It's looking like we should bring back the country map, statistics section and chart, but I think we should give it a little longer for others to comment, perhaps until end of 7 January 2021? Please feel free to add your voice, even if it is a neutral stance, or in opposition to the above suggestion. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the map, statistics section and chart should be reinstated. More, and clearer, information is generally good. Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you everyone for your support with this. The country map of (confirmed cases/detection) along with the statistics section and chart have been reinstated as per the above discussion. They have been brought back as they were when they last appeared 31 December 2020. The country map will need updating to reflect changes since that point. I will have a go at adding some further countries to the "Wikitable" chart. SpookiePuppy (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Numbers are misleading, because of the huge difference in genome sampling. I have put a note with the map, to this effect. Also I'm not sure the quality of the references for the numbers is consistent. Ideally we should be able to find all the figures from the same place, e.g. WHO, but certainly government, medical or scientific sources would be better than newspaper articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

E484K

Should this amino acid change be mentioned? "There is emerging evidence that the E484K mutation can enable the virus to escape some people’s immune responses" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00031-0 Fences&Windows 21:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this mutation is perhaps worrying and could be mentioned, see for example this preprint: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.424451v1.full Clowns und Kinder (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Fences&Windows for bringing this specific angle to our attention. The E484K mutation is mentioned on the page (in the Variant section), but I think we need to flag this aspect up in the context of immune escape and vaccines, so there should perhaps be a third level subsection added under Vaccine Evasion section. Possible third-level headings could be: E484K mutation, E484K amino acid change or E484K role in immune escape? Am definitely in agreement, just a question of where we should add it. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

E484K and the Brazil reinfection case I should also mention that I followed the Reuters link being used as a source, and it occurred to me that this could turn out to be an important development and may need its own section or subsection. The article states that "reinfection with this mutation of the virus is believed to be a first". The E484K mutation was mentioned, specifically, its ability to interfere with the "action of antibodies against the virus". There's an embedded link https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202101.0132/v1 for a preprint of a study approved on 6 January for publication in The Lancet. There's an important sentence in the PDF of the paper: "The finding of the E484K, in an episode of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection might have major implications for public health policies, surveillance and immunization strategies." I might be conflating two issues here, but it seems they are connected by the E484K mutation. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the new subsection on E484K, SpookiePuppy. Clowns und Kinder (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Resource page for the new variant 501Y.V2

It can be found here: https://cov-lineages.org/global_report_B.1.351.html Clowns und Kinder (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this link Clowns und Kinder. This global report is updated every now and then, with the latest dated 18 January (with updated reports under this same URL). I noticed under the linked languages on the main page that the equivalent article for the 501.V2 Variant on the Spanish Wikipedia [2] has a similar chart, but some of the cases are listed as a higher figure than the English Wikipedia's chart. For example, in the case of the UK, they list it as having 49 cases, where we have only 29). The above Cov-Lineages global report [3] is the source being used on the Spanish page for these higher figures. Should we adopt this as a source and change the statistics accordingly? Also, the chart on the Spanish Wikipedia page includes the South African cases (currently at 399). Should we alter our chart to include South Africa? I think the absence of South Africa has already been flagged up. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it is safe to use cov-lineages.org as a basis/source, and it will make the Wikipedia entry on 501Y.V2 more up-to-date. Clowns und Kinder (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This does look like a good source. Graph 5 and Table 3 expresses my reservations about comparing the raw numbers very succinctly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

The table would look like this:

Cases by country (Updated as of 22 January 2021)

Country	First date	501.v2 sequences (cases)	Total sequences since first case
South Korea	2020-12-26	1	9
United Kingdom	2020-12-10	73	35822
Sweden	2020-12-24	1	75
France	2020-12-22	6	133
Australia	2020-12-10	7	341
Germany	2020-12-21	5	132
Kenya	2020-12-15	2	6
South Africa	2020-10-08	447	813
Norway	2020-12-27	1	21
Switzerland	2020-12-14	2	1339
Finland	2020-12-19	2	40
Ireland	2020-12-22	3	127
Netherlands	2020-12-22	1	461
New Zealand	2020-12-29	1	26
Denmark	2021-01-04	1	4195
Belgium	2020-12-20	6	290
Botswana	2020-12-17	6	6
Spain	2020-12-24	1	231

The figures for Botswana are particularly worrying without further information. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

Vaccine ineffective against variant

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/20/covid-vaccines-may-need-updating-to-protect-against-new-variant-study-suggests seems to be more clear about changes making it ineffective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 88.112.30.115 for posting this Guardian article of 20 January 2021. It is quite concerning, as they seem to be singling out this variant (501.V2) in particular. It appears that research showing substantial resistance to antibodies in blood plasma is somehow being used to extrapolate over to the notion that the mutations in this variant will at least partly evade the vaccines, leading to possible reinfection. We will have to keep an eye on this. SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See also this preprint where they say "this lineage exhibits complete escape from three classes of therapeutically relevant monoclonal antibodies. Furthermore 501Y.V2 shows substantial or complete escape from neutralizing antibodies in COVID-19 convalescent plasma. These data highlight the prospect of reinfection with antigenically distinct variants and may foreshadow reduced efficacy of current spike-based vaccines." And see also Talk:Variants of SARS-CoV-2#Fresh preprint about South African variant and antibody escape Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian article is based on the preprint. As I mention above the suggested vaccine escape is speculation, reasonable speculation, but speculation nonetheless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

Some interesting articles from:

• Nature Fast-spreading COVID variant can elude immune responses, and
• Science New mutations raise specter of ‘immune escape’.

On this variant. Britishfinance (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A draft article started for the outbreak

I started Draft:501.V2 variant outbreak for the outbreak of it. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)