On the WHO naming (a short thread with some comments on the new naming system.
1. Here it is. Good that it's here but it's far too late
who.int/en/activities/…
1. Here it is. Good that it's here but it's far too late
who.int/en/activities/…
2. any scientist would have thought about using the Greek alphabet (because that's what scientists do) but probably discounted it because, well, it's a bit.. Greek (see point 1)
3. it's not future-proof.
10 Greek letters have been used up already out of 24. It's back to the drawing board for variant 25 (or at least another decision has to be made as to which e.g. alphabet to use)
10 Greek letters have been used up already out of 24. It's back to the drawing board for variant 25 (or at least another decision has to be made as to which e.g. alphabet to use)
4. it's out of order as it will include all Variants of Concern and Variants under Investigation - so the next named Variant of Concern after alpha, beta, gamma, delta... may not be epsilon (as it includes VUIs)
5. it doesn't include all variants that are being monitored 
6. it doesn't include all VOCs e.g the separately UK-desginated Variant of Concern VOC-21FEB-02 (B.1.1.7 with E484K)
https://twitter.com/Dr_D_Robertson/status/1399633783146614784
7. It uses the term 'Variants of Interest' (WHO term) rahter than 'Variants under Investigation' (UK term) confusing things.
It's also out-of-sync e.g. WHO designates B.1.526 'Iota' where UK PHE has this as a monitored variant.
It's also out-of-sync e.g. WHO designates B.1.526 'Iota' where UK PHE has this as a monitored variant.
8. Who decides (pardon the pun) which variants are designated VOIs or VOCs? At the moment, the UK PHE has taken a lead in this.
Do future namings have to go through a WHO committee? How long will this take?
Do future namings have to go through a WHO committee? How long will this take?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
