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 [] 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.39.201 (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * ✅. 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  &amp;  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  &amp;  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  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  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:

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 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: On this variant. Britishfinance (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nature Fast-spreading COVID variant can elude immune responses, and
 * Science New mutations raise specter of ‘immune escape’.

Wikipedia says: .... But does the following text mean that Moderna and Pfizer are likely equally good against South African variant?:
 * In February, Moderna reported that the current vaccine produced only one sixth (1/6) of the antibodies in response to the South African variant compared with the original virus.
 * On 17 February 2021, Pfizer announced that neutralisation activity was reduced by two thirds (to 1/3) for the 501.V2 variant, whilst refraining from making claims about the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing illness as a result of this variant.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/02/comparing-the-covid-19-vaccines-developed-by-pfizer-moderna-and-johnson-johnson/ "Feb 2, 2021. Each dose of Pfizer’s contains 30 micrograms of vaccine. Moderna went with a much larger dose of vaccine, 100 micrograms. It means the company is using a little more than three times as much vaccine per person as Pfizer is. And yet, they aren’t getting better results. Operation Warp Speed asked Moderna to test if it could lower the dosage of its vaccine without eroding the vaccine’s protection".

--ee1518 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 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)


 * I'd recommend expanding the content here until the content size justifies a breakout. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Austria greatest spreading in europe, regarding the confirmed case.. Can someone insert this?
https://www.vienna.at/mutationen-293-suedafrika-faelle-in-tirol-bestaetigt/6889918

There are 293 confirmed, about 200 suspective cases are partly sequenced at the moment. They are all in small area "Bundesland Tirol"; Austria doesn't take any action yet. Problem known since a week now.

From Austria (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

finland now at 17 south african variants detected
8.2. klo 16.04 Suomessa jo 224 virusmuunnoksen aiheuttamaa tartuntaa Muuntuneen koronaviruksen aiheuttamia tartuntoja on todettu Suomessa yhteensä 224, kertoo(siirryt toiseen palveluun) Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos (THL). Niistä 207 on Britanniassa havaittua virustyyppiä ja 17 Etelä-Afrikassa havaittua virustyyppiä.

THL:n mukaan Brasilan virusmuunnosta ei ole toistaiseksi tavattu Suomessa. Brasilian muunnos saattaa olla muita virusmuunnoksia tarttuvampi, THL kertoo verkkosivuillaan(siirryt toiseen palveluun).

STT-Yle from here https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11212596 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ 15 further cases for Finland have been added to the existing 2, making a total of 17 cases, as per the suggested source (https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11212596). SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

According to South African statistics, a previous old-type covid-19 infection gives ZERO protection against the South African variant?
Source: Slide 28 here: https://www.novavax.com/sites/default/files/2021-02/20210202-NYAS-Novavax-Final.pdf

A previous infection gives no protection against mild or serious infection with 501.v2 variant.

If you look at upper left corner of slide 28, there is the South African flag, introduced in slide 25.

A larger statistics may give more accurate figures when such statistics will be available, but so far this looks really bad. If this is true, this is very bad news for countries like India which now seems to have a very good herd immunity against the old covid-19 variant, as the covid-19 cases have been going down for several months in India. Even the main vaccine India is planning to use is AstraZeneca with questionnable efficacy against the South African variant.

--ee1518 (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Errors in statistics table
1) The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501.V2_variant#Statistics table has 3 entries that are not reflected at the link cited. The page linked is https://cov-lineages.org/global_report_B.1.351.html, but the countries Ghana, Montenegro, Nepal and Guinea are nowhere on that page. Some googling also turned up no reports of this variant in those countries.

2) The same table also reports that this variant was present in Brazil in a case reported from Jan 8th. However, the linked source article (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-brazil-reinfection/south-african-coronavirus-variant-detected-in-reinfection-case-in-brazil-idUSKBN29D33S) reports that the case was in October, and does not mention this variant. It instead mentions the E484K mutation, which is also present in the P.1 lineage (a.k.a. 501.V3) identified in Brazil. So this report is very likely that of the P.1 lineage and NOT 501.V2.

I'm new to wikipedia and have edited this but it would probably benefit from review by a more experienced editor.

Nolongerlurking (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ghana is supported by the source . It was detected on 6 January 2021, with 1 variant sequence out of a total of 78 sequences. So, I will re-add Ghana. However you are correct about the other countries, and they should not have been added. The table has been subject to a spate of low-level vandalism the past few days. I will look into the case in Brazil to see if it really is the 501.V2 variant. SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Vandalism continues from a user at 120.29.98.80 - I see a polite message has been left at their talk page; this appears to be the only page they're 'contributing' to- is there a way to block edits from this source? Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 120.29.98.80 Started editing on 14 February with Orthohantavirus (experimental? -reverted) and has also had edits manually reverted at Lineage P.1 and most if not all their others reverted. Yadsalohcin (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the vandalism at Lineage P.1 by the user at 120.29.98.80, and thank you Yadsalohcin for reverting those edits. I've now left a Level 2 vandalism warning on the user's talk page. I've looked into what to do next, and found this page WP:AIV. It appears that in the first instance, sufficient warnings must have been given to the user to stop their disruptive behavior, before reporting them to the Admins. This might mean abound 4 warnings, and it all needs to be within in a recent time-frame. SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Following further instances of disruptive vandalism by the user at 120.29.98.80, I manually put a further warning yesterday on the user's talk page and used the template for a Level 3 warning today. (Sorry forgot to sign- edit from earlier today) Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There's been a further instance of disruptive vandalism by the user at 120.29.98.80, I have placed a Level 4 (Final) warning (...uw-vandalism4|501.V2 variant...) at user's talk page today. Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And again today (also at Lineage P.1- have requested sanctions against the user at 120.29.98.80. - Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And again today at Lineage P.1- have again today requested sanctions against the user at 120.29.98.80 but although after yesterday's request the userpage appears to have been deleted there seems to have been no block imposed- Can anyone help/ advise! Yadsalohcin (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * A 31 hour block on editing was placed on the user at 120.29.98.80, following which the disruption resumed. In response, the user's talk page was then further tagged and further administrator intervention requested: there is now a 31 day block. Yadsalohcin (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Similar behaviour now found from user at 120.29.97.16, disrupting this page and Lineage P.1 (as before) - 2 warning templates placed on the User's talk page Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin intervention requested from User talk:Kralizec! who was involved previously Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Yadsalohcin for keeping on top of this. Also thank you to User talk:Kralizec! for your previous interventions. I've just had to revert another 2 edits to the 501.V2 variant page. I've added another Level 2 warning to the talk page of the user at 120.29.97.16. The disruptive behaviour seems rather similar to the User at 120.29.98.80. This may well be a case of block evasion (or ban evasion).SpookiePuppy (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks SpookiePuppy - I see that User talk:Kralizec! has imposed a block on this new IP address (thankyou once more). Yadsalohcin (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Saturday 6/3/21: further disruptive edits, this time from user at User talk:120.29.97.144, who's also done similar today at B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 /14:00 UTC: Oops sorry I meant Lineage P.1/ -Thanks SpookiePuppy for sorting out this page. Yadsalohcin (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've created a Talk page User talk:120.29.97.144 and added a Level 2 vandalism warning. SpookiePuppy (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a pretty concerted disruptive effort across three pages, so I've added a Level 3 warning at User talk:120.29.97.144. Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The same style of vandalism has started today from a user at User talk:111.125.105.77, with 2 edits putting unsupported entries into the table. I have left a level 2 vandalism warning at the talk page. Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Simplifying the statistics chart
I have been thinking for a while now that the Statistics Chart needs to be simplified. At first, I thought it was a good idea to have the date for each addition of new cases, but this has become complicated, requiring subtotals, forced linebreaks and numerous restatements of the repeat references, all of which have made it into an unnecessarily long scrolling chart.

I propose having only one date per country, which would be the date of the first variant sequence or first media report of the 501.V2 variant, whichever is earlier. All forced line breaks in the code should be removed. Where there's already a subtotal, this figure would become the main figure for that row (for any one country). The additions (or 'breakdown') for how the subtotal was arrived at will be jettisoned. For the references column, there would only be one instance of any repeat reference, per country. All other iterations of the repeat references would be deleted but we should retain all the other references that were built up along the way (which should go towards showing how the main figure was arrived at). I think we should be aiming for something along the lines of how the chart on Lineage P.1 has evolved. Admittedly there are far fewer countries involved there, but the format should work if we adopt it for this variant. SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to go ahead with these suggested changes, per WP:Bold. The statistics chart has become unwieldy and very awkward to update. Under the "Confirmed cases" column, only the subtotal will be retained and converted by removing "(total)". Country rows with only one reported figure will remain the same. The date column will be given a new heading: "First detection", and only the earliest of multiple dates will be retained. In the references column, only unique references per row (and per country) will be retained, no multiple iterations (in that row) of repeat references will be retained. Hope this will be acceptable to everyone. It can always be undone. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

New disruption
Today has seen significant disruptive editing activity on this page from User:41.162.121.2 - I have placed two warning messages at their talk page as they also vandalised the User error page. Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved  (t · c)  buidhe  06:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

501.V2 variant → Lineage B.1.351 – I believe that the PANGO Lineage names are the common names. This is in agreement with Lineage B.1.1.7 and Lineage P.1. Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs (formerly Twassman) 00:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs (formerly Twassman) 00:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the move to Lineage B.1.351 in the interests of uniformity. The only minor reservation I have is that 501.V2 variant was easier to remember. SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the move to Lineage B.1.351 for consistency. Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - We now have two new articles on COVID-19 variants: Lineage B.1.526 and Lineage B.1.617. I think that's going to be the standard title format for COVID-19 variant articles. Love of Corey (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support While 501.V2 and P.1 variants is too easier to remember than Lineage B.1.1.7 or B.1.617, which have too vague names as "British variant", "Indian variant", Japanese variant, or etc., i think now its time to standardize the title format of all COVID-19 variants. Someone can purpose it per WP:MEDRS at Wikiproject COVID articles. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "colloquially known as South African COVID-19 variant"
I have reverted an edit by User Talk:Lucasgenoma where the following text was removed: "or colloquially known as South African COVID-19 variant". An important link to a list on a former talk page South African COVID-19 variant was also removed. They did provide a supporting reference for the removal of the text which I have read. However, I still think a change such as this should be discussed here on this talk page, especially in light of the list of sources made available under South African COVID-19 variant. In their edit summary, the user also claimed that a similar lineage page, Lineage B.1.1.7, doesn't call it "UK variant", but on inspection, this is incorrect as there is a dedicated section titled "Names" where "UK COVID-19 variant", "UK coronavirus variant", "the UK variant", "British variant", "English variant" and "the Kent variant" are all listed. I should stress that these designations are not mentioned in the Lead of Lineage B.1.1.7, if that is what they meant. I do appreciate why this edit has been made and I agree with the thrust of the above Science article, but I do think this needs proper discussion. SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Cheers mate. I have seen your message and I understood your point, and while I won't redo the admittedly hasty edits, there's still inadequacies in the pages relating to SARS-CoV-2's variants of concern and the usage of national/geographic denominators. Visually, the lack of an encyclopedic padronisation, while not explictly part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, is not ideal, but the main issue of course lies on the usage of names that are both scientifically inaccurate and lead to stigmatisation. It really isn't comparable to put a national/geographic denominator in the article's short description, taking it as matter-of-fact, and putting it in a specialised section that explains different terms and their scientific value. It fails in both style of presentation and accuracy of information, not boding well for Wikipedia as a whole. Mind you, this is not about "what abouts", ideally all variants of concern should have "name" sections that indicate their media name, for recognition and completeness of information, but until then having "colloquially known" in the short description does far more harm than it helps the quality of the article. This is my understanding, at least. 177.54.140.89 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Johnson & Johnson and Novavax the only proven vaccines against this variant?
Efficacy in S. Africa(94%-95% B1.351 during trials): https://twitter.com/MonicaGandhi9/status/1377724771622813697
 * Johnson & Johnson(1 dose) 64%. 2-dose results might come in May.
 * Novavax NVX(2 doses, nanoparticles) 55%. Not in use. 2 countries have ordered: UK and Kanada.
 * AstraZeneca 10%

April 1, 2021

(This is the latest version of table, as of April 21).

--ee1518 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
There have been further disruptive edits, this time from a user at User:111.125.105.240 - I have placed level 2 and 3 warning template at their talk page as they have also been extensively disruptive at Lineage P.3 - Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "Beta COVID-19 variant" or similar
The WHO's new designation of a consistent nomenclature - Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants (who.int)

It's a more memorable name than B.1.351 and is likely to become an emerging term within the media (per WP:NAMECHANGES)

JMonkey2006 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's controversial, but I agree. It may take a while for the media to pick it up though. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅--Fernando Trebien (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

GISAID Table
I have decided to completely remove local sources from the statistics table, as official government Sources are available on the GISAID Database. If you want me to re add them, then please just ask me TapticInfo (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

figures compared with delta variant
A total of 12,281 cases caused by the coronavirus variants have been identified in Finland:

Alfa-variant: 7,953 Beta-variant: 1,445 Gamma-variant: 7 Delta-variant: 2,876 The numbers of variant strains are based on the data reported to the National Infectious Diseases Register. The information was updated on Wednesday, 11th August. https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/what-s-new/coronavirus-covid-19-latest-updates/situation-update-on-coronavirus

could be added to be consistent.