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

Response internationally
Shall we add Singapore’s and Hong Kong’s response to this page? Hanami-Sakura (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔️ It has been added Run n Fly (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In Finland
Indian Covid variant reaches Finland
 * ✅ The 3 cases for Finland have been added to the Statistics chart, with a provisional detection date of March 2021. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also added a new paragraph to the section First detection and international spread under the same reference.SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"Indian variant" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian variant. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bangalamania (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Rise in cases of Black Fungus
I recently visited the equivalent article for Lineage B.1.617 on the French Wikipedia site fr:Variant B.1.617 and noticed that a couple of sentences had been added on what they term "champignon noir". At first, I wondered what on earth had been added to the page, but gradually realised that there had been some cases reported in India of a rare, but serious fungal infection called Mucormycosis (or black fungus). The cases were reported in patients who had recovered from Covid-19. The short paragraph on the page pointed to a possible connection with type-2 diabetes and with the use of corticosteroids that would weaken the immune system and promote the black fungus infection. They clarify that there is not a direct causal link to SARS-CoV-2 virus itself. I searched for reliable sources on this and found a BMJ news story which confirms a rise in cases of mucormycosis in India in patients who had been recently treated for COVID-19. The BMJ article also mentions that the Indian Medical Association (IMA) has warned people not to smear cow dung and urine over the body or face, a practice which some believe protects against the virus. A BBC article reported that three hospitals in Mumbai saw 40 cases of the fungal infection in April, and Surat, a city in Gujarat, reported 40 cases. It is being reported by the Hindustan Times that in Maharashtra, there have been over 2,000 cases of mucormycosis and 8 deaths. At present, there doesn't appear to be a direct link to Lineage B.1.617, however I think we should monitor this, not least because the larger proportion of the cases of the fungi are in Maharashtra, where this variant was first identified. On consulting a map of the state of Gujarat, I was able to determine that Surat is not far from the edge of the state of Mumbai and only 450km from Maharashtra - which in terms of the size of India is not as far as it sounds. Do any other editors think we should add a section on this, to point out the above, but make it very clear that there is not direct link to the SARS-CoV-2 virus? It may be that in the near future, a firmer link might be identified with Lineage B.1.617, even if is due to the above factors (cow dung/steroids/diabetes, etc.) rather than the variant. It also occurred to me that a more fitting place for such a section would be on the COVID-19 pandemic in India page. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I will request at the Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India to include as a subsection Run n Fly (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"Last detection" column in Statistics table
I have reverted the very misleading "Last detection" column in the statistics table. The single entry was not last detection, but last report by the media. Based on currently existing technologies, it is not physically possible to take a sample, sequence and get the result in a single day. Last media report ≠ day of detection. In the absolutely fastes countries, it takes an average of five days to sequence (UK, Australia, NZ, Luxembourg, a couple of Scandinavian countries are only with that average). In most countries, average is a week or more and many take several weeks. Just check recent GISAID records where the vast majority of today's uploads of this variant are from April or first ten days of May, a couple are from March, and only a single in the last seven days. One could think that B.1.617 was almost extinct! The column would, even if the real last detection dates were added (i.e., not "last reported by media"), misleadingly make it appear as if the variant was almost gone. I also note that among other variant pages with a similar table none have a column like that, which is unsurprising because they would have the same problem. Can anyone provide a good argument for that column? 178.155.171.181 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "Last detection" column was potentially misleading, in that at first glance it could appear as if the sequencing of Lineage B.1.617 had become a thing of the past. I think the column should not be included unless a consensus of opinion (with good reasons for inclusion of the column) is reached on this talk page. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Term "Indian variant"
I tried adding the term "Indian variant" in the lead sentence as per here but it got reverted, with another editor saying here that the WHO doesn't want that term to be used. But surely the fact that the term is in widespread use (if unwarranted) means that term should be included. And should an encyclopaedia's wording be governed by what an individual organisation thinks is proper? Perhaps we could have wording like "The variant is also widely called 'the Indian variant' though the WHO discourages terms identifying variants with geographical areas." What do you think?--A bit iffy (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Since COVID-19 is not termed as China/Wuhan virus even being popular among many. Then we should follow the same here. Such terms are advised not to be used since they lead to COVID racism and it creates xenophobia. Even the term UK variant is not used anywhere in the lead paragraph of Lineage B.1.1.7.


 * I think we should stick to the term double variant instead. WHO has advised/clarified not to use the term 'Indian' via their verified twitter handle (https://twitter.com/WHOSEARO/status/1392396456774955014) and mentioned We refer to them by their scientific names and request all to do the same for consistency. as the reason behind it. Also, multiple WP:RS like The Hindu, NDTV and The Indian Express has reported the same. Even New York Times uses B.1.617 in their reporting. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * First, for the record (in case I'm misunderstood!), I agree with the WHO that variants of the virus shouldn't be referred to as by a geographical name (I'm aware of the Trump thing of referring to it with reference to China and Wuhan.) However, even the COVID-19 article you refer to uses a similar term "Wuhan coronavirus" (it's early on in the article). The WHO (again, correctly in my view) want to use the scientific designations, but this does not alter the fact that many media outlets do use "Indian variant" and similar terms. I've seen it used on British, Irish and French news sites. So perhaps we should include a remark in a "Name" section, in a similar way to the COVID-19 article, stating that the term "Indian variant" is often in use against the WHO's wishes.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK then a separate "Name" sub-section can be included where we can state that some media around the world have called earlier the variant as "Indian variant" though the WHO discourages terms identifying variants with geographical areas with all the available WP:RS similar to Lineage_B.1.1.7. Pinging other active contributors for their opinion. Run n Fly (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Run n Fly for the Ping, I understand where you are coming from with this tricky area. I have previously strongly defended the inclusion of the more accessible geographically-inspired name for two other notable variants, Lineage B.1.351 and Lineage P.1. You mention Lineage B.1.1.7 where it appears that a great deal of discussion took place before the editors arrived at the current version which as you rightly point out, manages the nomenclature problem in a unique way - with a dedicated section. From what I have observed so far, the overall variant nomenclature is an evolving area. It has taken many months to settle on something of a standardised naming of the variants on Wikipedia, (so that they now typically begin with "Lineage"). I haven't always got this right and there have been a number of speedy page moves! In the same way that the technical naming has evolved with each new variant, I believe the location-based tagging needs to evolve, not just because of the WHO advice discouraging country-based naming but because some editors have already made their objections clear and cited their valid reasons, such as avoiding xenophobia. To make matters even more difficult for editors to keep up with, certain variants have been redesignated along the way, for example VUI-202012/01 became VOC-202012/01 (re. Lineage B.1.1.7). Another valid reason not to use a term such as "Indian variant" is because this variant is simply not exclusive to that country (I know, stating the obvious). However, I think this exposes the core issue which we are grappling with: it's not deliberate geographical labelling, but rather a convenient reference that doesn't involve an alphanumeric code, which references the locality in which the variant in question was deemed to have been first identified and reported. So although somewhat off-the-cuff, the country-based naming is a much-truncated way of saying all that. Of course this didn't work so well for Lineage P.1 as it was first detected and reported in Japan, but was readily accepted to be the result of widespread infection originating out of Manaus, Brazil. I think if it were only an issue of redirects and the realistic Wikipedia search terms (that people are likely to type in), it would be fine as there are plenty of redirects already in place. Having said all that, I don't see why we can't have a dedicated section on names in much the same way as Lineage_B.1.1.7. It might not be the most substantial section to start with, but I am sure it will grow over time. SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've now added something to the "Name" section, but possibly it could be adjusted.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is commonly known and reported in the media as the 'Indian Variant' excluding this term would be missleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The term is not being excluded from the article, just the lead section. It's mentioned in bold text in the second paragraph under the section titled Name, as discussed above. SpookiePuppy (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

daily totals
This will become outdated very quickly - should consider how this is useful: Perhaps few, many, dominant might be more useful??

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/virologist_indian_variant_not_major_concern_in_finland_though_care_should_be_taken/11950617

shows now at 60 cases in Finland for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Updated Finland under Col. 4 (other sources) to 60 cases and the source you offered here has been added. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

preprint from Public Health England - adjusted vaccine efficacy for Pfizer and AstraZeneca against B.1.617.2
A CNBC article describes a preprint (NOT YET PEER REVIEWED) purportedly from Public Health England that calculates adjusted vaccine efficacy for Pfizer and AstraZeneca against B.1.617.2. Preliminary data worth evaluation for inclusion here when it's formally published. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ added along with a result from Pasteur Institute at Lineage B.1.617 § Vaccine efficacy. The preprints are to be replaced when WP:MEDRS available. Run n Fly (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

B.1.617.2 article
The .2 subtype is the interesting, newsworthy one. So I wonder whether this article should be recast in that vein, or alternatively a new article? Lots of information, like the first decection, would be more useful focused on the subvariant. Dan88888 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nepal variant
There seems to be a lot of news about an unofficial "Nepal variant" of this could something be mentioned here to accomodate searches? Troll Control (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the statistics chart
I've added a new column which has been inserted between the countries column and the old "GISAID" column. This effectively forms a new 2nd column. This new column is intended solely for the sublineage B.1.617.2 (a.k.a Delta variant) which is increasingly going to be the main focus of this recently renamed article. At the top of the new 2nd column, I have applied a new PANGOLIN source (Ref. 71) which points to a more specific reference giving the stats for B.1.617.2. I have not been able to branch off the GISAID statistics because the existing source doesn't appear to be providing the sequences specifically for the Delta variant, instead, it seems to list all three sublineages rolled into one figure. If anyone has a link for a source which gives the GISAID figures solely for B.1.617.2, then this would be most welcome. The chart is going to need some further alterations, but I thought that this new column would be a step in the right direction. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
This paragraph was removed, because I had the main PHE source wrong initially, and I quoted an epidemiologist citing it in summary:


 * On 3 June 2021, Public Health England reported that twelve of the 42 deaths from the Delta variant in England were among the fully vaccinated, and that it was spreading almost twice as fast as the Alpha variant. Queen Mary University London epidemiologist Deepti Gurdasani reported that more than 90% of new cases in England are the delta variant, and advised on 11 June to, "Take precautions even if fully vaccinated." Also on 11 June, Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Canada reported that half of their 22 cases of the Delta variant occurred among the fully vaccinated.

I'd like to replace it, and am open to replacing the tweet ref. I know you're supposed to cite the source where you initially learned the included fact, but in this case Gurdasani was excerpting the "Technical briefing 15" in her Twitter thread, so it should be okay to omit the tweet citation, right? 2601:647:4D00:2C40:0:0:0:88EB (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments/thoughts: (by person who removed paragraph): (1) I'd agree your finding of the Technical briefing 15 contains some excellent information. (Especially on diagnosis) Its actually quite a long document and probably needs an in-page citation. (2) The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the body section; not a place simply to place the headline news.  In an ideal world with infinite RL time resource I've have simply moved it into the body.  But we've got tweets going on so I'm hesitant with that. (3) There  appear to be a date discrepancy on the last edit and with a comment of "fix date" the url seemed to be moved from technical briefing 14 to 15. (4) There's vaccination efficacy (generally measured in trials and relating to prevention of getting the disease) and vaccination effectiveness (generally measured when the disease becomes prevalent in a vaccinated or semi-vaccinated population and being related to prevention of "severe outcomes" often being measured by the hospitalizations metric).  (5) I'm mostly interested in the World Health Organisation view of things.  (6) I am aware and minded reports from SME's seem to indicate the Delta VOC is more transmissible, often with more server outcomes, and reducing vaccination effectiveness especially with one dose; that said evidence is full vaccination is generally effective in eliminating or reducing severe outcomes in a number of people.  I have happy to see that sort of sentence in the lead section if it can be supported by the body. (7) Try to keep the dates to the history section mainly, and avoid cluttering other sections that should be more of a "status" than an historical log.  (8) There's briefings from the UK today and that may have clearer information. (9) Im not a MEDRS/Medical article specialist.  (10): I need to look at RL stuff and will be WikiBreaking throughout the day.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Symptoms
I edited the section, SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant using The Guardian and the BBC as sources. Can anyone with access to medical journals or medical websites provide better sources? Tim Spector may be able to help. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I found an article in a website called, Healthline but that isn't peer reviewed and is controverial. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "Delta COVID-19 variant" or similar AND Split B.1.617.1 into "Kappa COVID-19 variant"
The WHO's new designation of a consistent nomenclature - Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants (who.int)

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

JMonkey2006 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC) JMonkey2006 (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I suggest wait and see which of the two will be more widely adopted. This is not exact a name change. Rather, this is a new naming nomenclature. – robertsky (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was about to start an RM discussion here, just as it started to dawn on me that this is not going to be straightforward, as User – robertsky has identified. There will be some serious disentangling to do due to the sublineages. Having said that, I am not opposed to the name change to "Delta variant" or "Delta COVID-19 variant" or even "VOC delta" along with renaming B.1.617.1 "Kappa COVID-19 variant", but I also think we should wait and observe and give some thought as to how we will extricate B.1.617.1. SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I WP:JUSTDIDIT and someone reverted, I think given this page is about the VOC it should be B.1617.2 and start again with B.1617.1 --Almaty (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And apologies I didn't see this talk page. --Almaty (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's controversial, but I agree. It may take a while for the media to pick it up though. It really will require some effort to separate information of each variant, but the first step is to rename this article and create an article for Kappa to begin this work. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and split off to SARS-CoV-2 Kappa variant for B.1.617.1. These are not variants of COVID-19. They are variants of SARS-CoV-2. Most people infected by SARS-CoV-2 do not become ill with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant, is equivalent to the proposal currently in bold at B.1.1.7 and would make sense. Ordinary people can't or don't want to override media nation-based-stigmatising names. Boud (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant for this article and SARS-CoV-2 Kappa variant for the article about the new sublineage. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant for this article. I've taken the liberty of starting off a new article SARS-CoV-2 Kappa variant to assist with the disentangling of the sublineages. I have used WP:SPLIT in my edit summaries as often as I could so that the origin of the content was asknowledged. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in copied if you don't know it. I'm not sure if using only the 'from' and 'to' parameters is recommended or not (the 'basic' usage has nine parameters!), but my assumption is that it's better to use the template with just these two parameters (a copy on both the source talk page and the destination talk page) rather than not using the template at all. Boud (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant for this article & SARS-CoV-2 Kappa variant article about the new sublineage--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record I would support Delta variant of COVID-19 or COVID-19 delta variant or even COVID-19 Delta per WP:MEDTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure whether its the common name everywhere but working in the field in Australia its certainly the common name here. --Almaty (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 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: not moved. Closed per using WP:SNOW  Run n Fly (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant → Covid Indian variant – Not enough sources about new name. See Talk:Spanish flu 85.48.185.61 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are lots of variants of COVID-19 in India. And what does "Not enough sources about new name" even mean? There are millions of sources that say "Delta variant". Nohomersryan (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Strongly. Very Strongly. Many, especially WHO, were very concerned about the practice of naming variants about the Location the variant was first identified in e.g. Brazil, South African, Indian, UK/Kent because variant identification can only be done by Genome Sequencing and not all countries have that capability. While I'm not personsally convinced about WHO's particular scheme I believe its totally appropriate to follow it.  ( I dont object to Indian  or UK/Kent etc etc being used as a redirect due to the amount of past literature using that name).  WHO is WP:MEDRS.  I am borderline on considering if this is simply a disruptive nomination.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I observe this has resulted in a BOT slamming Covid Indian variant at the top of the article page. This could be seen as a way of circumventing page protection to take a swipe at India.  We AGF it isn't.  Requesting  to determine if this move request should be closed immediately, and I am tempted to do so myself.  Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't "a way of circumventing page protection", either "to take a swipe at India" or for any other purpose. It's a way of alerting readers of the article to this discussion so that they can take part if they choose to. Closing the discussion early with the avowed intention of hiding the fact that the discussion is taking place would not be a good idea. JBW (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Grunt. What a way to waste volunteers time by an anon IP.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose vehemently. Recommend using WP:SNOW since it states: "if an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." SpookiePuppy (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason we didn't use British variant or Kent variant for the alpha one. Now the WHO has given them names and these names are used by sources (such as the BBC) and individuals more than Variant of Concern 202012/01 so I think the current title is preferable per WP:COMMONNAME. I personally still use "Kent variant" and "Indian variant" more when referring to them (and agree these names should have redirects and be mentioned in the articles) but I think we should use the formal names rather than nicknames.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Delta plus and delta plus variant
Delta plus and delta plus variant should redirect to the same place. 83.151.229.56 (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Run n Fly (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Rename to Indian variant
It seems like we need to rename this article back to Indian variant as there is no prof from enough sources about the new name. See Talk:Spanish flu. We need some coherency in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.3.200 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The practice of naming pathogens after regions/countries/etc. is no longer observed per the WHO. See the official guidelines on this. Phrost (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

90% more transmissible
Why does the article talk about how much more it is than the Alpha variant? This seems biased to the UK, it would be better to say how much more it is something compared wit hthe original (or close as can be reached) original virus strain. There is an article that does that we can quote here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/24/its-in-the-air-you-breathe-what-you-need-to-know-about-sydneys-delta-covid-variant and some other updated info in there too

Easy to misunderstand "lower levels of neutralizing antibodies"
The text "five times lower levels of neutralizing antibodies against the Delta variant" should probably be followed by "compared to the original COVID-19 strain". As it is, it's easy to misread, and I've already seen misinformation that read it as "the vaccine lowers your antibody levels".


 * Yes check.svg Done Run n Fly (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Error in mutation profile
Under the "Classification" header it states that the Delta variant has the substitution E484Q, but it does not. The paragraph in the introduction contains the correct mutations. Please change "causing the substitutions E484Q and L452R" to be consistent with the text above, "causing the substitutions T478K, P681R and L452R" Mamenama (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ E484Q has been deleted, and mutations D614G, T478K, P681R have been added to the remaining one, L452R. Have also added internal Wikilinks where available along with a supporting reference, repeat ref. 21 citing the CDC. SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

More virulent and more contagious - SOME health officials
Delta [https://www.wwno.org/news/2021-07-02/what-to-know-about-the-delta-plus-covid-variant-how-serious-is-it-will-vaccines-work "is much more virulent and much more contagious than the original coronavirus", according to public health officials. “It's easier to spread from person to person, probably about 60 percent more transmissible, [and] more virulent, meaning it's more likely to make people sick. If you get it, you're going to be more likely than the prior variant to have to go to the hospital.”]

But we must censor; "As Delta Variant Surges in U.K.", Information about the efficacy of ivermectin must be kept from the masses at all costs. The Beeb says [https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57610998 The latest Public Health England (PHE) figures show there were 92,029 confirmed Delta cases between 1 February and 22 June, most of which were identified in June. Of these, 58% were in completely unvaccinated people and only 8% were fully vaccinated. For context, by the start of June more than half of adults in the UK were fully vaccinated. If the vaccine weren't helping, they would be expected to see more than half the cases.] But many major US news outlets are reporting, based on the same report, that of 117 Delta variant deaths, 50 people -- 46% -- had received two shots of vaccine. The actual reports (tb 16 : 18 June), (tb 17 : 25 June), (25 June Delta risk assessment) are helpful. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly unreliable preliminary result
This is the only study reporting the effectiveness of Moderna against Delta. However, many point estimates in Table 3 in the study by Nasreen et al are significantly higher than those found by another study in Ontario by Chung et al for other vaccines, as well as those from previously published effectiveness studies of the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines. I don't know, these are preliminary results, but there seems to be something strange about the study by Nasreen et al, maybe confounding. The numbers in the study by Chung et al are similar to other reports. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is only a preliminary result. I changed the wording of the sentence. The word "unreliable" strikes me as a bit strong. The study is based on a small sample size, and needs to be confirmed, but I think they are truthfully reporting their results. medrxiv is a preprint server, so we will have to wait for their article to undergo peer review.Dongord (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the lead
The last paragraph of the lead could use some work. The paragraph starting with On 25 June 2021. It's very technical, I can't really understand it. It has tone issues, e.g. the real issue is. I recommend rewriting it, moving it to another section (maybe the history section?), or removing it. Also, the entire lead has a WP:PROSELINE issue. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know how the case fatality rate of Delta compares with that of wild type sars-cov-2 or the other variants. Public Health England started compiling statistics on this question, but they note in their reports that this rate cannot be compared with other rates because the situation now has changed (eg. more people are vaccinated), and also since Delta is new, it is still unclear what will happen to the people who have only recently tested positive for Delta. For now, I've moved the paragraph down to the History section.Dongord (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

AY.3 lineage under misleading header
There is a mention of the AY.3 lineage in the US alongside the "Delta plus" lineages, giving the misleading impression it shares the K417N mutation with these, or has another novel missense mutation in the spike protein, which is not the case. Besides, it cites a primary source, with no context, so yeah.

—   True. Delta plus are Delta lineages with S:K417N mutation (for today it's AY.1 & AY.2). However, it should be mentioned because it accounted for approx 25% of cases in the US and numbers are rising --89.208.18.44 (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Diagnosis
I'm curious, does anybody know how this variant is diagnosed given that to my knowledge there are no delta variant tests? † Encyclopædius  07:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As with all other mutations it is typically detected via whole genome sequencing of positive samples. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, I would actually say most labs are using qRT-PCR to detect probe-annealing temperature to the area of interest and infer the most notable mutations, thereby determining the variant status from there. This is substantially cheaper, easier, and faster than whole genome sequencing. It's performed either right after, or in tandem with, reverse transcription. Some tests don't even need reverse transcription and can be performed directly on bulk sample (non-extracted) RNA . Although, as with all such tests, nucleic acid extraction usually increases fidelity. If the virus doesn't have the relevant mutations, it changes the melting temperature of the PCR reaction, and thereby is detectable in qRT-PCR readout. Examples: using ViRSNiP from TiB MolBiol,  using Thermo's TaqPath.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Infection fatality rate
What sort of sourcing would be needed to get this article to have a section on infection fatality rate that is as complete as the section in the main COVID-19 article (COVID-19)? Abductive (reasoning) 06:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021
Please remove this from the intro:

Public Health England (PHE) in May 2021

and replace it with this:

In May 2021, Public Health England (PHE)

It just flows better if the date doesn't interrupt the flow of the rest of the sentence. 64.203.186.69 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ thank you. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Clutter
There is a lot of "According to a paper published in The Lancet ..." language in this article, which violates the WP:INTEXT guideline. The readability of this article is pretty poor, and following WP:INTEXT would be helpful. Abductive (reasoning) 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Prevention
Although the prevention section mentions vaccines, stay at home, social distancing, isolation and barriers such as facemasks are effective. In UK Wave 2 (Alpha/Original) From November 2020 to April 2021 the wave was primarily contained by lockdown and social distancing measures with vaccination only beginning to impact towards the end of the wave. UK 3rd Wave (June 2021+) is meaning primarily attempted to be contained by increasingly vaccination supplemented by social distancing, etc. The key point here is vaccine should not be presented as only means of prevention; physical barrier methods should also be mentioned. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No we must keep all mention of early treatment or prevention, other than vaccines off wikipedia. Because. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief section on the non-pharmaceutical measures recommended by WHO to prevent the spread of covid-19 generally.Dongord (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But impractical. Does one hide for the rest of one's life?  The only all-round prevention is to get vaccinated. Thank you Dongord for addressing this POV.50.111.44.54 (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Date First Detected in Introduction
In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SARS-CoV-2_Delta_variant&diff=1037699428&oldid=1037681096 the following sentence was removed (the references right after were not removed resulting them in becoming references for the preceding sentence, they cause a new section to appear on the talk page when I clicked preview so I omitted them here):


 * It was first detected in India in late 2020.

Why was this sentence removed from the intro? The first paragraph still has the 31 May 2021 date for when the WHO named it. Below in the table 5 October 2020 is listed as the first detected date in India, which is in late 2020. The date of first detection is more important than when it got its name, I have no idea why this was removed from the lead paragraph. The reason for that edit was "Fixed content", which doesn't explain why it was removed? Could an editor please restore that sentence to the first paragraph? 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:99B9:B032:44A:C32B (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I just checked again and the sentence was restored. Thank you for restoring the content. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:99B9:B032:44A:C32B (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's been ✅, thank you to User:Velayinosu. I would have restored it too, had it not already been. SpookiePuppy (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Finland Delta and other Variants
Health Authority gives figures here:

https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/what-s-new/coronavirus-covid-19-latest-updates/situation-update-on-coronavirus

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.

I am not sure if you accept this as a suitable secondary source in wikipedia so I add it here and it can be added if so.
 * ✅ for Delta variant, added to the Statistics section. SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021
Please remove

In countries other than India, the first cases of the variant were detected in late February 2021

and add

The first cases of the variant outside India were detected in late February 2021

64.203.186.113 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the heads up.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Australia Data
Current (13 Aug) Australian outbreaks are almost all (a small recent outbreak in Qld was alpha) delta variants ~6000+ cases. Actually, probably a good place to do virulence studies since low vaccination and v.low previous infections.
 * Do you have a particular source in mind that we could use to support the claim of 6,000+ Delta variant cases? It would be helpful. SpookiePuppy (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "Indian variant" from lead
I recently removed the bolded "Indian variant" from the lead since it isn't a common name after the Greek letter nomenclature was established by WHO. Just by searching "indian variant" in the past month, Google only brings up articles referring to it as the Delta variant originating in India or in India (and yes, I know Google isn't a source, but the search goes to show that terminology isn't prevalent). The removal was reverted by @SpookiePuppy for "Removal of reference material"; to be completely frank, I don't what that means. Why was the edit was reverted? BappleBusiness (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. When I reverted the edit, I did so because the edit removed text (albeit a couple words) which had a valid reference supporting it and no specific reason was left in the edit summary (although the edit summary did say what was done, but not why). When I reverted the edit, my summary note meant to say "Removal of referenced material", referenced past tense, not "reference".  In the past, there has been some similar discussion regarding the term "Indian variant" on this Talk page which has since been archived. Having thought about this more, I think you might be right in that "Indian variant" should not be in bold text in the lead, and perhaps I should not have reverted your edit. There are various ways that similar articles deal with this nomenclature problem. A footnote with other names can be used which works well for the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant, whereas the Alpha variant page has a subsection dealing with "names". One thing to bear in mind though, is that the truth of the matter was that for some time, (months even?) the common name was "Indian variant" and as you quite rightly point out this is no longer prevalent in comparison to Delta variant, but should we try to selectively hide the history of this variant?  Perhaps what we should be saying is that historically, or in the first few months, this variant was called by what was a common name at the time. It would be good to see what other editors of this page think about this issue. SpookiePuppy (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's wrong to hide the history of the variant; it should be included somewhere. In my opinion, following the format of the Alpha variant article and including it in a separate "Names" section would allow us to properly contextualize the nomenclature, especially because the Kappa variant also originated in India, plus the WHO guidance against using location-based terminology. BappleBusiness (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine protection

 * - for Pfizer it drops "from more than 90% to 55% in people age 65 and up who received their second jab in January." - according to Israel's Health Ministry. It is significant. We should probably modify the statement in the lead that "COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease". Not so effective, at least for older people after 6 months. Hence the 3rd shot. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In England, those older than 50 have Case Fatality Rates decrease. But those younger than 50 have vaccinated CFR 0.03% and unvaccinated CFR 0.04%. The US CDC simply does not have such detail data for delta. —— CommInt&#39;l (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Data summed up wrong
In the second paragraph of the intro the following sentence is wrong: "In August 2021, Public Health England (PHE) reported secondary attack rate in household contacts of non-travel or unknown cases for Delta to be 10.8% versus 10.2% for the alpha variant; the case fatality rate for those 300,010 with Delta is 0.2%, where half of the cases and one third of the deaths are unvaccinated.[10]"

It should read:

In August 2021, Public Health England (PHE) reported secondary attack rate in household contacts of non-travel or unknown cases for Delta to be 10.8% versus 10.2% for the alpha variant; the case fatality rate for those 300,010 with Delta is 0.2%, where 55% of the cases and two thirds of the deaths are unvaccinated.[10]

As per the document cited, the ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated cases is 45/55 and vaccinated and unvaccinated deaths is 33/66. So the inverse of what is written.


 * Not wrong. More deaths are from the vaccinated, because being old has higher chance of death, no matter with or without viruses, with or without vaccines. This is the nature. Everybody dies. —— CommInt&#39;l (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Mention of CFR in second paragraph of article
In the current revision of the article, the second paragraph contains a sentence proclaiming that "the Delta variant in England has case fatality rate of 0.2% (0.13% if unvaccinated), while the Alpha variant has 1.9%". Including this in the article seems to me to be both misrepresentative and dangerous. For one thing, the numbers used for this "0.13%" conclusion (or any CFR for that matter) are extremely skewed towards people under the age of 50, with over 98% of the cited cases being recorded in people under the age 50, while it is well known that people above the age of 50 are especially at risk from Covid. On the other hand, it is exactly that group which first had access to vaccines. It would seem to me to be irresponsible to make any blanket statement on the CFR based on the cited document, which doesn't even seem to purport to have found a CFR for the Delta variant as a whole, at least not for unvaccinated people. Cartsbicep (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreover, PHE itself has stated that this claim "is factually incorrect" and a manipulation of the data: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/07/instagram-posts/data-showing-lower-death-rate-coronavirus-delta-va/ Cartsbicep (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The characterization of mortality should be independent of the health conditions of specific populations and the conditions of specific health systems. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

At last this sentence was removed.--Dipa1965 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think the "correct" CFR should be higher, list a country where the CFR is higher alongside with England data. England has documented 300,000 cases in a clear manner, please provide if any other country has clearer data. —— CommInt&#39;l (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the misleading part of the existing statement is that it combines the 50 groups into a single group, even though they are extremely different and the data purposely splits them apart. The article currently says "half the cases and 1/3 of the deaths were unvaccinated", when really the "half of cases are unvaccinated" just comes from the <50 crowd (which accounts for ~89% of the cases) where as the "1/3 of deaths" comes from the >50 crowd (which accounts for ~90% of the deaths). This happens because the two groups have completely different vaccination rates, where around ~60% of the >50 are full vaccinated (~90% have started vaccination) and only around ~20% of the <50 are fully vaccinated. The >50 still have the most deaths because those <50 are unlikely to die even without the vaccine (which is why they're reported separately), but the much higher vaccination rate in >50 means that you're going to see more cases in vaccinated people. If you only look at the >50 group then you see that the fully vaccinated have a 1.8% death rate and the unvaccinated had a 5.9% death rate (Note: including the groups part-way through vaccination gives a new death rate of 1.6%), despite more deaths of vaccinated people (since the vaccinated population is much larger). It's only when you combine the two groups do you get the suggestion that somehow only half the cases were vaccinated while 2/3 of those who died had some level of the vaccine, which would imply that the vaccine makes it *more likely* that you die - and that is not true, it's just that you're more likely to have gotten the vaccine if you were in the group already more likely to die. The >50 population makes this clear, the group who got the vaccine had a much better outcome even though that group had more total deaths. Compstrong (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The England data is not misleading. It shows that being young is better than being vaccinated. —— CommInt&#39;l (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As per request, I will emphasize that the data is as it is now because young deaths are rare. —— CommInt&#39;l (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Moved 'Indian Variant' from lede to a separate 'Names' section as per previous discussions
Hello,

There have been previous discussions on this subject.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SARS-CoV-2_Delta_variant#Removal_of_%22Indian_variant%22_from_lead 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SARS-CoV-2_Delta_variant/Archive_1#Term_%22Indian_variant%22

To maintain consistency with other similar articles and for the reasons mentioned in the previous discussions, I've moved the term 'Indian Variant' to a separate section called Names.

Tagging folks from previous discussions for their views.

Amazingcaptain (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur this is a good move. Especially given the negative consequences associated with naming viruses after places. See —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the move. Should we also mention in the section that the Kappa variant was also first identified in India? Also, I don't know if B.1.617.3 was found in India as well, should we also mention that if it is true? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 19:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sorting this. The new subsection looks good and solves the problem. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

yet another stupidly locked article with problems
"These mutations, when taken individually, are not unique to the variant; rather, their simultaneous occurrence is."

"These mutations, when taken individually, are not unique to the variant; rather, their simultaneous occurrence is."

Please do not publish my IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.157.18 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right about that claim, in that it's no longer correct. I originally added it along with the source when this article related to Lineage B.1.617. At that point, the statement was correct in relation to two defining mutations, E484Q and L425R. Where you ask for clarification as to what "These mutations" refers to, it would have been E484Q and L425R taken together, and this would explain why this line has been left in under the bullet point for L425R. The article has since morphed into a specific one covering the Delta variant (lineage B.1.617.2) as opposed to the parent lineage B.1.617 (which was extricated), and since the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) lacks the E484Q mutation, the line you quote is now rendered incorrect and will need to be removed in its entirety along with the two references, one of which is only a repeat reference. I appreciate you drawing my attention to this. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, line deleted along with the two references. Have checked carefully that the 2 references were not used elsewhere in the article. SpookiePuppy (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-archiving note: I have published this user's IP against their wishes because Wikipedia is bigger than one person and it is imperative that we know when and by whom a comment was made. If they'd really wanted their IP hidden, they could've just created an account. Graham87 (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Reworded the first paragraph
Felt as if the old beginning paragraph was too hard to read/understand for the audience to read, so I reworded the information and simplified for the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweger (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The paragraph probably did need simplifying, however, I am slightly concerned at the use of the word "strain" in the first paragraph of the article. Some editors may object as I once saw this term being discussed in relation to "variant" and "isolate" on an archived Talk page of Variants of SARS-CoV-2. Having said that, the term "strain" does appear in other articles for the variants. On a separate issue, I have added the footnote (Names) back in as I do not see why this should have been removed when another editor has gone to the trouble of setting it up, and this didn't just happen, the footnote was put in place following a Talk page discussion. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Covid Delta Variants: New Cases Rising and being ignored by poliitcs
New Delta Cases are on the rise as Politics within Europe are ignoring it. It has shown that the mutated variant has spread up to 85% within the last 2-3 months. Politics within central Europe seem to ignore such data and are reopening Bars, Restaurants and normal life continues, but at what cost?

The Delta Variant shows that hospitalization rate increases by 63% for not Vaccinated people and therefore is considered as extremely dangerous. People who have only received one vaccine shot are likely to decease by 23% and has been proven to be irrelevant for politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallomynameistom (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sentence fragment in virulence section
The end of the virulence section has a period where there shouldn't be one. It would appear someone accidentally cut out a part of a sentence/merged two sentences together, maybe someone whose first language isn't English. Hope someone can fix this.--Phil of rel (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What order are the countries in, in the "Statistics" section?
What order are the countries in, in the "Statistics" section? Are they supposed to be in order of the number of cases?? Or is there some secondary explanation for why they don't fully seem to be? Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Delta-specific covid vaccine trial results
I googled:

delta-specific covid vaccine trial


 * November 1, 2021:

Moderna is investigating the usefulness of Delta-specific booster, hoping to post trial results in early 2022.

https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-booster-unlikely-data-experts-suggest-unnecessary-2021-10?r=US&IR=T


 * September 29, 2021:

Pfizer/BioNTech is testing out a reformulated vaccine candidate specifically targeting delta. Clinical trial results are anticipated in the fourth quarter of the year.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2021/09/29/delta-booster


 * No results posted yet:

https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases

--ee1518 (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Delta plus
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/thousands-cases-delta-plus-variant-confirmed-uk-135828311.html found in 33 countries. The article at present is not very clear on this name delta plus - several variants seem to have the name. It seems the most used name now is AY 4.2 and that there are 2 significant spike protein mutations in this variant i.e. A222V and Y145H. - this name usage could be made clearer. https://www.newsweek.com/ay-4-2-variant-covid-spread-faster-unknown-sequencing-issues-1645386 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is also suggested the name could be nu https://insiderpaper.com/ay-4-2-up-to-15-more-transmissible-than-delta-may-be-named-nu/ - this has not happened yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.64.166 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Fully Protect this page
This page has vital information about the Delta variant of the 2019 Coronavirus. It should be fully protected. HenryOmarCCCmango (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Clade?
Nextstrain is now reporting Delta falls into clades 21A, 21I, and 21J. This is in the cited source. I'm going to update it to say this but I admit I'm not an expert.Palehose5 (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What on EARTH is the order that the countries are in, in the "Statistics" section?
What is the order that are the countries listed in, in the table in the "Statistics" section?? Are they supposed to be in order of the number of cases?? Or is there some secondary explanation for why they don't fully seem to be in order of number of cases? (It's not ordered by "number of cases", or by "date the first case", or by "alphabetical", or anything that could possibly be clear from a glance.) If no one knows the reason why they're in this bizarre order, can we just put them in order of number of cases? Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Working on putting it in order of number of cases. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Done! Finished putting the countries in order of the number of cases! :) Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge into SARS-CoV-2 page
I don't believe this should be it's own page, a lot of the information on here is redundant and could better be explained by being a subunit of the SARS-COV-2 page Reeeweee (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022
Change: Most U.S. doctors have no way to determine which variant of the coronavirus a patient is carrying, a distinction that could mean the difference between life and death. High-risk patients carrying the Delta variant could benefit greatly from two particular monoclonal antibody treatments shown to reduce hospitalization and death. But those medications would most likely do nothing for patients with Omicron, who would only respond to a third antibody treatment that is in very short supply. Differentiation of Delta and Omicron variants is also crucial in the decision making of high risk patients, especially when deciding whether they should be considered for in-patient care versus outpatient follow-up.

Delta patients benefit most from the antibody drugs made by Regeneron (casirivimab and imdevimab) and Eli Lilly (Bamlanivimab), while Omicron patients benefit from antibodies from GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology (sotrovimab (VIR-7831)).

An example of a test that can differentiate these variants are seqeuencing and PCR tests such as GG COVID-19 Omicron and Delta kit. Also, the ability to screen tens of thousands of patients per lab in one setting is something that sequencing can never do, but real-time PCR can do, as sequencing is highly labor instensive and even world-class laboratories usually process less than a hundred a week. This is also due to the fact that single PCR has to be done and if the PCR doesn't come out (specimen quality, etc), sequencing cannot be done. However, due to the amplification properties of re-time PCR, GG COVID-19 Omicron and Delta kit is able to detect most covid-19 infections and whetehr it is Delta, Omicron, or neither. It also has the ability detect Stealth Omicron (BA.2) and has the potential to detect future mixed delta and omicron type which may well be a problem in the future.

There needs to be a test that will be able to tell if a newly infected individual with COVID-19 has the Delta variant or the Omicron variant, as the clinician who sees the COVID-19 patient firsthand should be able to triage the COVID-19 patient in regards to disease severity, underlying disease status, and the variant status and for this PCR testing such as GG COVID-19 Omicron and Delta kit has to be introduced as soon as possible. Jjn1983 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aweger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence?
The sentence "These fatality rates are lower than the average fatality rate of 1.9%, presumably due to the now relative high percentage of the more vulnerable in England." seems incomplete. Is something like "... that have been vaccinated." missing at the end?

study https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.08.21261768v1.article-metrics
When it says "On August 10, a study showed that the full vaccination coverage rate is correlated inversely to the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant mutation frequency in 16 countries (R-squared=0.878). Data strongly indicates that full vaccination against COVID-19 is critical to suppress emergent mutations.[68]"

This study is a PREPRINT and the statistic analysis isn't rigorous because it violates some assumptions and it has some issues not addressed by the researcher.

Where can I get the references for the first cases by countries194.27.73.87 (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It is there for some countries and missing for most of them, unlike other variants pages of Sars-Cov-2, please let me know if I'm missing something or if the references are missing194.27.73.87 (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022
Change “India’s second COVID-19 wave”, The Wire Science, 22 April 2021 to Narang, Deepanshu (2021). “India’s second COVID-19 wave”, The Wire Science, 22 April 2021. Docpostdoc (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding the Author name. Docpostdoc (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Went ahead and just remade the reference from scratch using the VisualEditor interface. This process included adding the author's name. Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)