Omicron variant of SARS‐CoV‐2: A pandemic of global concern warrants a cautious approach

To the Editor,

SARS‐CoV‐2 had been a potential candidate of global concern since its emergence in China in December 2019. ¹ COVID‐19 was declared a Pandemic in March 2020. ² The review article mentions that the first case of Omicron in South Africa was international travelers. ³ If the first case of Omicron was found in international travelers in South Africa, then it warrants two more points to be clarified further. First, the statement claiming Omicron was first reported in South Africa needs to be withdrawn with a disclaimer that the first case of Omicron was found in the case of the international travelers of the originating country. Second, the country where the international traveler resided/traveled/belonged needs to be mentioned for public awareness. If the traveler belonged to South Africa and traveled internationally, then the term “returning international traveler” should be used rather than an international traveler. We do see the mention of the Netherlands reporting Omicron a week before South Africa, but confusion still prevails amongst the readers as to where the Omicron was first reported. Hence, ambiguity still prevails regarding the origin of Omicron, whether in the Netherlands or South Africa or the country to which the returning international traveler traveled. The review article states that “Following the D614G, Beta/Gamma, and Delta VOCs, the SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron variant could be the catalyst for the fourth wave of the COVID‐19 outbreak to sweep the globe.” ³ As far as announcements in the public domain are considered the second wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic was credited to Delta, ⁴ arguably the most contagious variant of SARS‐CoV‐2. Will it be prudent to call the fourth wave for Omicron? If yes, then which variant of SARS‐CoV‐2 is credited to cause the third wave? This needs to be clarified by the authors for the understanding of the readers. The author of the review article also states that “As a response, the goal is to raise awareness while avoiding overreaction.” ³ What is exactly meant by overreaction? From a general perspective, the gross negligence due to “underreaction” leading to a lack of preparedness as well as lack of awareness amongst authorities and the public about emerging variants of the COVID‐19 virus, has led to the persistence of the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus even today. The higher mortality rate during the wave catapulted by Delta had led to a chaotic situation across the globe. After the decline of the first wave, there was a general sense of “underreaction” to COVID‐19. The world could not anticipate the lethality of the new emerging variant like Delta, which was emerging slowly after the decline of the first wave, the so‐called underreaction to emerging variants at that time led to a terrible situation for the world, leading to many casualties and imposing of complete lockdown leading to huge economic losses. We believe that terms like overreaction may be avoided, so that a sense of responsibility, alertness, and readiness to deal with any adverse situation during the pandemic must prevail. The review article also highlights that “One of the most densely populated countries, India, has taken five steps to combat the new COVID‐19 spread.” ³ It is good to notice the COVID‐19 mitigation step taken by India, but it would have been more resourceful if COVID‐19 mitigation steps taken by China is also unveiled. As one of the corresponding authors of the review paper is from China, it was expected that a Chinese perspective would be highlighted, as China had taken aggressive attempts like a zero‐tolerance policy against COVID‐19. An elaboration on the efficacy of Chinese policy for COVID‐19 mitigation would have been more enlightening for the public at large. The review article states that “Individuals infected with the new variant must be isolated.” ³ We wish to emphasize that at the ground level the authorities are isolating patients with only those variants which are declared as Variant of Concern by WHO. Also, clarity is needed about what kind of isolation the authors mean? Is it self‐isolation, home isolation, or institutional isolation? Hence, the statement in the review article that “Individuals infected with the new variant must be isolated,” needs more clarity.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Ashwini Mahadeo Gahukar and Krishna Khairnar developed the concept for this letter. Krishna Khairnar wrote the first draft. Ashwini Mahadeo Gahukar and Krishna Khairnar edited the second draft and improved the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final draft.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Not applicable.