Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Reverting edit(s) by 2603:6011:A03:6459:282A:45D4:9A5B:30F0 (talk) to rev. 1061440539 by 109.101.119.76: test edits (RW 16.1)
Tag: Reverted
Line 293: Line 293:


https://www.digi24.ro/amphtml/stiri/actualitate/al-16-lea-caz-de-omicron-confirmat-in-romania-o-femeie-de-39-de-ani-care-s-a-intors-din-rd-congo-1777255
https://www.digi24.ro/amphtml/stiri/actualitate/al-16-lea-caz-de-omicron-confirmat-in-romania-o-femeie-de-39-de-ani-care-s-a-intors-din-rd-congo-1777255

== 米軍は沖縄から出て行け! ==

<br/><div style="font-size:500%;color:black" align="center">米軍は沖縄から出て行け!</div><br/>

Revision as of 08:16, 22 December 2021

    Malaysia

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
     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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    Hong Kong

    Hong Kong reported their fifth case earlier today.[2][3] 1.64.47.144 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done: GISAID are stating 14 cases for Hong Kong[1] This number is far higher than the 5 cases in the request. SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's behind this discrepancy? 1.64.47.144 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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[2] are attributing 14 cases to China. There are press sources, such as the SCMP[3] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Tracking of Variants". GISAID. Archived from the original on 23 June 2021. Retrieved 10 December 2021.
    2. ^ "Epidemiological update: Omicron variant of concern (VOC) – data as of 11 December 2021 (12:00)". ecdc.europa.eu. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). 11 December 2021. Retrieved 12 December 2021.
    3. ^ Lee, Danny; Cheung, Elizabeth; Ting, Victor (10 December 2021). "Omicron variant: Hong Kong tightens measures for US arrivals, requires first week of 21-day quarantine to be at Penny's Bay government facility". South China Morning Post. Hong Kong. Retrieved 12 December 2021. The Omicron case, the city's fifth so far, involved a 37-year-old man who arrived from the US on Tuesday and was among the seven new infections confirmed on Thursday.

    Table of confirmed sources

    I suggest we merge the confirmed cases into one column for all of them regardless of source. Let's turn to List of the oldest living people as an analogy. There's an HTML comment that says:

    Inclusion in this list requires a reliable source that is less than a year old. The definition of a reliable source is provided by WP:RS. ANY reliable source is sufficient; there is NO requirement that the person's age has been validated by Guinness World Records or GRG.

    Likewise, after altering the table we can have the same HTML comment, only ending with "...that the cases have been validated by GISAID." Any thoughts here?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Having everything in a single column was causing some issues with keeping the data up to date. See § I put in "as of November 26, 2021". --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In a fair number of countries, GISAID is the main touchstone for everyone doing genetic sequencing, so it is helpful having it as a separate column. I think the issue is not so much about "validation" as it is about being able to track quickly both the GISAID numbers and numbers by more local sources.Dongord (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    The statistics table already has 6 cases for Turkey listed in column 3 (under other sources) citing Reuters.[1] SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     @ 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Six cases of Omicron variant detected in Turkey - minister". Reuters. 11 December 2021. Retrieved 12 December 2021.

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Proposal: move stats to a template

    There are many template articles for case statistics in Category:COVID-19 pandemic templates, mainly for countries and continents. One reason to put statistics into templates is to allow for independent edit histories, so it's easier to track and review the changes. So I propose we create Template:SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant cases and Category:SARS-CoV-2 variant cases for it and the other variants, then add the category as a subcategory of Category:COVID-19 pandemic templates. New editors would find the new article through a view/talk/edit navigation bar as show in Template:Navbar § See also and COVID-19 vaccine § Distribution. What do you think? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't profess to fully understand everything in this proposal, but I can see a certain amount of benefit that would be gained from template-izing the statistics table. However, wouldn't this new template need 'coding' by someone? SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. It isn't a typical template with lots invokes, ifs and whatnot, but it has a bit of extra surrounding simple code to add nice features, like the button for the Visual Editor, the link to the main article, and so on. I copied the structure from {{COVID-19 cases in Europe}} added the navbar (which {{COVID-19 cases in Europe}} does not have), created template documentation, the category and the talk page, then replaced the table in this article with a template call. I think it looks nice this way, but we can always merge back if there's any need. I also requested page protection for the template to prevent vandalism. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ftrebien: Well done on the new statistics template. Following what you've done there has brought back memories of my attempts to learn machine code many years ago, such as how we had to poke a subroutine (or sub-programme) directly into memory to call it back later on! And one tiny mistake in the hexadecimal made it crash. So I appreciate your efforts and the table is much easier to edit now. SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome! --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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

    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)[reply]

    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).[4][5] (prevalence of 69-70del, see "Daily Prevalence", also [6] for other variants) --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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.[7] 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 [8] at position 484,[9] and position is proportional along the horizontal axis. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not milder in Denmark?

    A senior researcher said in a news report:[1] 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)[reply]

    Mention to the same at 3:05 here:[2]

    References

    1. ^ "Pfizer shot less effective against hospitalisation in South Africa - study". Reuters. 14 December 2021. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
    2. ^ "Omicron could become dominant in Ontario within days, new data shows". CBC. 14 December 2021. Retrieved 14 December 2021.

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    First recorded in the Netherlands

    According to different news sites Omicron was actually first „noticed“ in the Netherlands (shortly after WHO made aware of the variant, old test samples in the Netherlands were positive for the variant already on 9th of November) 2003:E3:5F35:C28:30D1:A267:C67:7B13 (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If you give some sources, then people might use them to add info to the article. Boud (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Romania Omicron

    Three more cases of infection with the Omicron variant of the SARS CoV-2 virus were confirmed on Wednesday in Romania. The total number has thus reached 11. Doctors warn that after the holidays it is possible to increase the number of diseases in Romania. 109.101.119.76 (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated in the statistics table to 13 (for Col. 3 "other sources"). Citing:[1] "Până în prezent, în România au fost confirmate 13 cazuri cu varianta OMICRON a virusului SARS-Cov-2." SpookiePuppy (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "MS: Încă două cazuri de infectare cu varianta Omicron au fost confirmate în România". www.digi24.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 2021-12-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

    Cannot Add

    The table "World" sum row makes no sense.

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

    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)[reply]

    "As of 15 December 2021, 20 days after the first significant uptick in South Africa cases, there was still no significant uptick in COVID deaths. "

    I don't think this is correct. Weekly deaths increased almost four-fold in the past two weeks (epiweek 47 through 49) and appears set to further increase substantially this week:

    https://www.nicd.ac.za/diseases-a-z-index/disease-index-covid-19/surveillance-reports/daily-hospital-surveillance-datcov-report/

    Chaptagai (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the article is refering to Omicron deaths, and not the covid virus as a whole. Beansohgod (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that the official record of COVID deaths did not increase there, but excess deaths did, which suggests there's under-reporting. Both things are mentioned in the same paragraph, but maybe the phrasing could be changed. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Finland now at 34 cases

    https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/-/over-10-500-new-covid-19-cases-recorded-in-finland-last-week?redirect=%2Fen%2Fweb%2Fthlfi-en

    page in English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.234 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    case now in Poland

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-reports-first-case-omicron-covid-19-variant-pap-2021-12-16/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.234 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update Malaysia

    Malaysia has 2 cases, not 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAEgSxyaf3E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crannofonix (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update China

    China has 2 cases, not 1

    https://www.scmp.com/coronavirus/greater-china/article/3159649/omicron-china-reports-second-case-mutated-variant-after — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crannofonix (talk • contribs) 12:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done The entry for China in the statistics table (Col. 3 - other sources) has been updated to 2 cases. SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    south florida

    not to repeat the obvious but this is serious....(perhaps add sources below somewhere in the article)

    --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    update Romania

    Two new cases with the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were confirmed on Friday, in Romania, the Ministry of Health announced. To date, 13 cases with the OMICRON variant of the SARS-Cov-2 virus have been confirmed in Romania.

    https://www.digi24.ro/amphtml/stiri/actualitate/ms-inca-doua-cazuri-de-infectare-cu-varianta-omicron-au-fost-confirmate-in-romania-1773443 109.101.119.76 (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done See: Talk:SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant#Romania Omicron. SpookiePuppy (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Virulence

    Anyone want to update the virulence subsection?

    https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top-doctor-issues-stern-warning-against-omicron-c-4959906

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/17/no-evidence-that-covid-omicron-variant-less-severe-than-delta-uk-study.html

    https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2021-12-17-forste-omikron-erfaringer-far-laeger-til-at-frygte-mange-indlagte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:8800:B600:1DA:C72:D7D3:701F (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update Singapore

    https://www.thesundaily.my/home/singapore-reports-24-confirmed-omicron-cases-as-at-thursday-IG8668497

    Singapore has 24 cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crannofonix (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Singapore updated to 24 on the statistics table. SpookiePuppy (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update Chile

    There are 30 cases in Chile.

    https://www.cnnchile.com/coronavirus/omicron-the-economist-chile-pais-mejor-preparado_20211217/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crannofonix (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tree is scaled by time, not genetic distance!

    Change from:

    [[File:Omicron SARS-CoV-2 radial distance tree 2021-Dec-01.svg|thumb|Omicron variant and other major or previous [[Variant of concern|variants of concern]] of [[Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2|SARS-CoV-2]] depicted in a tree scaled radially by genetic distance, derived from [[Nextstrain]] on 1 December 2021]]

    to

    [[File:Omicron SARS-CoV-2 radial distance tree 2021-Dec-01.svg|thumb|Omicron variant and other major or previous [[Variant of concern|variants of concern]] of [[Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2|SARS-CoV-2]] depicted in a tree scaled radially by time elapsed since December 2019, derived from [[Nextstrain]] on 1 December 2021]]

    (or delete graph from article as it's much, much less interesting if it's only depicting time elapsed since December 2019)

    Corrected on commons, but article here is locked from IP editing. 2A02:8071:184:DA00:BCB1:62A:34A9:9AAD (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done for now: The caption on Wikimedia Commons appears to still state that the tree is scaled by genetic distance. I'm pinging @Soupvector: to see if they can help. SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    btw, I did specifically discuss time versus distance scaling prior to adding it to the page. — soupvector (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the speedy response. I'll change the "answered" tag on this semi-protected edit request to "yes", but the graph and caption will stay as it has been until now. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

    change 8 December to 8 November

    First detection in sample = 8 November, not December 91.133.65.212 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Agre that was an error in the lead section (was already correct in the History section), fixed now. Thank you! — soupvector (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Add R0 of Omicron

    I just want to know that I just want the R0 of Omicron added to this article to know how transmissible Omicron. Thank you in advance.:) Ant1234567 (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can provide a reliable source, I will add it to the appropriate article. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update Romania (2)

    A new case of infection with the Omicron variant of the live SARS-CoV2 has been confirmed in Romania. So far, 16 cases with the OMICRON variant of the SARS-Cov-2 virus have been confirmed in Romania. 109.101.119.76 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    https://www.digi24.ro/amphtml/stiri/actualitate/al-16-lea-caz-de-omicron-confirmat-in-romania-o-femeie-de-39-de-ani-care-s-a-intors-din-rd-congo-1777255

    米軍は沖縄から出て行け!


    米軍は沖縄から出て行け!


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2_Omicron_variant&oldid=1061538319"