B.1.1.529(twitter.com)
twitter.com
B.1.1.529
https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1463885539619311616
160 comments
Definitely just need a combination of fast alterable vaccines, good public health (vit d, lower weight), and reasonable masking around vulnerable people.
the speed within which B.1.1.529 became dominant is really concerning
It's easy for a variant to become dominant just by random chance if the prevalence is low. That's the case here. Alpha and Delta were quite different, they took over when the case counts were high, so it was basically impossible for founder effects to be the reason.
So in this case we need to rely much more on the circumstantial evidence (which admittedly seems pretty solid on a first skim).
So in this case we need to rely much more on the circumstantial evidence (which admittedly seems pretty solid on a first skim).
If it is confirmed to spread like this chart makes it look like, this is very bad.
https://nitter.net/jburnmurdoch/status/1463956686075580421
https://nitter.net/jburnmurdoch/status/1463956686075580421
This is still a handful of cases (10 total, the only comparison curb I've seen is on three cases in Botswana; there could be one on six other cases in South Africa). We’ll know more soon, and hopefully, local health authorities will contain anything worrisome, but this is not yet like Delta with thousands of cases emerging overnight in some countries.
Yes, I've also been really surprised by this. The fact that South African wastewater coronavirus detection is spiking dramatically [1] makes me wonder if this variant could be a genuine step up from the current status quo.
[1] https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-11-25-the-covid...
[1] https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-11-25-the-covid...
On Nitter, no Twitter account required: https://nitter.net/chrischirp/status/1463885593461628928 (link to end of thread, so you can scroll up over the broken part of the thread)
On Threadreader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1463885539619311616.html (full thread)
On Threadreader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1463885539619311616.html (full thread)
Oh man nitter is so much better - twitter is just full of ad/promoted content. Never knew about nitter.
I'd love a browser extension that automatically redirects all twitter URLs to the nitter equivalent.
Maybe you can find something that you like here:
https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/wiki/Extensions
https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/wiki/Extensions
Nitter ftw. I've noticed I barely every open threadreader now.
A deleted Tweet from her has broken the thread. The full version can be viewed easily at https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1463885539619311616.html
So, basically, another Covid variant, but much badder than Delta?
I’m a bit fed up with coronaviruses tbh.
I’m a bit fed up with coronaviruses tbh.
The infection rate in South Africa when this variant arose was extremely low.
This variant has not had to compete with Delta at all.
It established itself in a vacuum of infections, and it may all be due to founder effects, with a new wave of infections due to behavior or other changes.
I'm also very skeptical that P681H is suddenly going to flip the script and start displacing P681R.
SA also has low vaccination rates and its not obvious that this variant arose because of selection for immune evasion (even if it did, immune evasion from NAbs is probably inevitable and will happen forever).
This variant has not had to compete with Delta at all.
It established itself in a vacuum of infections, and it may all be due to founder effects, with a new wave of infections due to behavior or other changes.
I'm also very skeptical that P681H is suddenly going to flip the script and start displacing P681R.
SA also has low vaccination rates and its not obvious that this variant arose because of selection for immune evasion (even if it did, immune evasion from NAbs is probably inevitable and will happen forever).
Stop feeding then.
We all are.
The coronaviruses don't appear to be fed up with us, unfortunately.
throwamon(4)
Hopefully not worse. The current assumption seems to be that it could be different enough to avoid existing immunity gained against previous strains.
Remember the spike needs to bind to the ACE receptor which is what vaccines target, so if it escapes vaccines, it probably isn’t going to be as easily infectious. Maybe.
If that was true in this scenario why would it have gained so much victim market share in South Africa so much quicker than Delta did?
SA is very undervaccinated (less than 25% per the link) so it's probably too early to say either way.
SA has low levels of vaccination, but they've had high infection rates. There should be substantial levels of immunity to earlier variants in the population. It's not directly comparable, but it should be possible to get some idea of how well the new variant escapes existing immunity.
Your answer seems to assume that the distribution of spike proteins which binds to the ACE is very close to the one for which we obtain immunity by getting vaccinated.
Yet we can already see that Delta binds better than the early strains and the efficacy of existing vaccines against it is like 60%, which contradict that. Does it make sense?
Yet we can already see that Delta binds better than the early strains and the efficacy of existing vaccines against it is like 60%, which contradict that. Does it make sense?
Vaccine efficacy decays with time. If you've had a 3rd vaccine recently, it will be much more than 60% effective.
We don't even know what it does - bit early to say things like this.
FWIW, coronaviruses have been around for a very long time. 30% of common colds are coronaviruses.
FWIW, coronaviruses have been around for a very long time. 30% of common colds are coronaviruses.
Aha! So in particular, this could be the prophecised variant that is super infectious, benign, and ends Covid as we know it?
I feel myself slowly peeling off from reality.
> FWIW, coronaviruses have been around for a very long time. 30% of common colds are coronaviruses.
I can’t say I have a particularly soft spot for colds. They just don’t do it for me, I could easily live without them.
I feel myself slowly peeling off from reality.
> FWIW, coronaviruses have been around for a very long time. 30% of common colds are coronaviruses.
I can’t say I have a particularly soft spot for colds. They just don’t do it for me, I could easily live without them.
I recently found this video that shows and comments the worldwide evolement of variants over time. It is astonishing just how dominant Delta has become.
To me this was more entertaining than a marble race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_FjVVHS00
To me this was more entertaining than a marble race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_FjVVHS00
What does this means? Now we need booster 4? Or don't need booster 3? Or nothing matters anymore?...
Its a developing situation. What exactly it means isn't clear yet. Booster 3 is almost certainly still helpful but how helpful against this strain requires more science. Booster 4 (at least in the near term) would continue to probably do nothing further because its not a simple matter of more boosters at the same time equal more protection. That's just not how it works.
People seem to want to treat covid as if its a school assignment; as if there is a teacher giving you harder and harder homework in an arbitrary fashion who knows what is going to happen and you can ask them. Its not - this is the real world. Answers come when people test out theories and discover what's what. Its a process, and it takes time. What the article is saying basically is that there is a lot of uncertainty but what we do know so far is concerning.
People seem to want to treat covid as if its a school assignment; as if there is a teacher giving you harder and harder homework in an arbitrary fashion who knows what is going to happen and you can ask them. Its not - this is the real world. Answers come when people test out theories and discover what's what. Its a process, and it takes time. What the article is saying basically is that there is a lot of uncertainty but what we do know so far is concerning.
Depending on who you listen to, well, you might need boosters every few months for the rest of your life. There's concern in some circles that because the vaccine trains your body to respond strongly to one specific version of one specific part of COVID, it permanently reduces your body's ability to learn how to counter different parts of other versions of COVID --- meaning that once you start taking boosters, you'll need them forever. It's unclear how much of a point this camp has.
> it permanently reduces your body's ability to learn how to counter different parts of other versions of COVID
This seems unlikely. It's usually considered that immunity to one variant gives you at least some immunity to other variants.
Could you provide sources for this claim?
This seems unlikely. It's usually considered that immunity to one variant gives you at least some immunity to other variants.
Could you provide sources for this claim?
The basic argument is that if you are vaccinated, and then contract the virus, the immune system will only produce antibodies for the spike protein in the vaccine, and it will not “learn” how to attack other parts of the virus.
If a new variant has a spike protein different enough, then you will not be in a better situation than an individual with no vaccine and no previous contact with the virus.
In contrast, someone with natural immunity would have the ability to produce a wider range of antibodies that target many different parts of the virus, therefore many more variants would be vulnerable to at least some of the antibodies.
(Caveat: the immune system actually is more complex than that)
If a new variant has a spike protein different enough, then you will not be in a better situation than an individual with no vaccine and no previous contact with the virus.
In contrast, someone with natural immunity would have the ability to produce a wider range of antibodies that target many different parts of the virus, therefore many more variants would be vulnerable to at least some of the antibodies.
(Caveat: the immune system actually is more complex than that)
> If a new variant has a spike protein different enough, then you will not be in a better situation than an individual with no vaccine and no previous contact with the virus.
That's quite a different claim to "it permanently reduces your body's ability to learn how to counter different parts of other versions of COVID".
> In contrast, someone with natural immunity would have the ability to produce a wider range of antibodies that target many different parts of the virus
This is a very different argument that natural infection gives more effective immunity than vaccination, and the empirical evidence does not seem to agree.
That's quite a different claim to "it permanently reduces your body's ability to learn how to counter different parts of other versions of COVID".
> In contrast, someone with natural immunity would have the ability to produce a wider range of antibodies that target many different parts of the virus
This is a very different argument that natural infection gives more effective immunity than vaccination, and the empirical evidence does not seem to agree.
> That's quite a different claim to "it permanently reduces your body's ability to learn how to counter different parts of other versions of COVID".
Here the argument is that, when the antibodies “learned” from the vaccine have a low, but not nil, effectiveness, then the immune system of a vaccinated person would continue producing only the same antibodies. A person with natural immunity would instead be able to modulate the immune response and use the most effective among the many antibodies that they can produce.
> This is a very different argument that natural infection gives more effective immunity than vaccination, and the empirical evidence does not seem to agree.
There is some evidence that natural immunity lasts longer, although it is not settled yet.
Here the argument is that, when the antibodies “learned” from the vaccine have a low, but not nil, effectiveness, then the immune system of a vaccinated person would continue producing only the same antibodies. A person with natural immunity would instead be able to modulate the immune response and use the most effective among the many antibodies that they can produce.
> This is a very different argument that natural infection gives more effective immunity than vaccination, and the empirical evidence does not seem to agree.
There is some evidence that natural immunity lasts longer, although it is not settled yet.
So far, not much: it appears that there are very few cases confirmed (10 so far). If all those people isolate and don’t contaminate anyone, that could be the end of it. But one of them just flew on an intercontinental flight, so… yeah, things might not be contained.
If even one of them transmit to someone else, who transmit is themselves… this could spread like the Delta variant. There has not been any clinical test on the effectiveness of vaccines, of course; however, with so many mutations, in particular the mutations on the parts that code the spike protein, the vaccines that have proven effective so far (which focus on that spike) are likely to be far less effective. It’s likely we would develop new vaccines, but that presents more risk, so would need more tests, etc. Lockdowns are likely in the meantime.
If even one of them transmit to someone else, who transmit is themselves… this could spread like the Delta variant. There has not been any clinical test on the effectiveness of vaccines, of course; however, with so many mutations, in particular the mutations on the parts that code the spike protein, the vaccines that have proven effective so far (which focus on that spike) are likely to be far less effective. It’s likely we would develop new vaccines, but that presents more risk, so would need more tests, etc. Lockdowns are likely in the meantime.
> it appears that there are very few cases confirmed (10 so far). If all those people isolate and don’t contaminate anyone, that could be the end of it.
What makes you think that a set of mutations like this can evolve only once? Even if this particular lineage of COVID goes extinct, its existence demonstrates that the virus is responding to selection pressure in the way you'd expect any organism to respond under conditions of natural selection. If evolution can pull of B.1.1.529 once, it can do so again and again.
What makes you think that a set of mutations like this can evolve only once? Even if this particular lineage of COVID goes extinct, its existence demonstrates that the virus is responding to selection pressure in the way you'd expect any organism to respond under conditions of natural selection. If evolution can pull of B.1.1.529 once, it can do so again and again.
It's been found internationally already. Also there's a 0% chance that those ten detected cases are the only actual cases.
doesn't her second graph show that the indirect signature of the new strain indicates that it is widespread in SA?
Boosters of the same vaccine will make the effect of a vaccine to last longer, if its protection diminishes with time. Other variants are present too, so regardless if this particular variant spreads to your zone or not, it probably won't harm.
The problem if is this variant is different enough to the original variant for the vaccine to be effective against it or no.
The problem if is this variant is different enough to the original variant for the vaccine to be effective against it or no.
From the Prof.:
“We do know that B.1.529 has many more mutations than other variants and has mutations seen in other variants that are associated with BOTH higher transmissibility AND immune escape.”
“We do know that B.1.529 has many more mutations than other variants and has mutations seen in other variants that are associated with BOTH higher transmissibility AND immune escape.”
usedtoprog(1)
Please fix the title and mention that this refers to a new COVID variant
Names looking similar to the one of this variant have been mentioned on the news already, so it might not be completely surprising for some people that this is about SARS-Cov2.
The nomenclature is called PANGO by the way. It is named after the software tool "Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak Lineages" (PANGOLIN) which is used to classify lineages of SARS-Cov2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_Assignment_of_Nam...
https://cov-lineages.org/
The nomenclature is called PANGO by the way. It is named after the software tool "Phylogenetic Assignment of Named Global Outbreak Lineages" (PANGOLIN) which is used to classify lineages of SARS-Cov2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_Assignment_of_Nam...
https://cov-lineages.org/
On first read, I thought someone had revived the B programming language (predecessor to C), and started their pre-2.0 versioning at 1.1.
FWIW.
FWIW.
I particularly liked how the mutations were described as "horrific". How are they? Do they have terrible claws and sharp pointy teeth?
So probably new shots every 4-5 months and the end game will be a yearly shot like with the seasonal influenza?
Got my 3rd shot a month ago but I can see we will get a new one in the spring. Rinse and repeat
Got my 3rd shot a month ago but I can see we will get a new one in the spring. Rinse and repeat
There are several effective anti-virals in the approval pipeline. Vaccines plus the antivirals combined will hopefully crater severe cases and this will become just another cold virus.
There's really no evidence to come to that conclusion at this time.
Israel is already at the fourth shot. Not evidence, but definitely grants the suspicion.
Source?
Nov 24, 2021 "Health minister suggests fourth vaccine dose amid rising fears of fifth COVID wave"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/health-minister-suggests-fourt...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/health-minister-suggests-fourt...
Something along those lines is what the very early medical projections were, yes, as I recall.
hell of a yearly shot
Not really. As far as vaccines go they look to be very safe and effective.
c7DJTLrn(2)
[deleted]
I'm fully bracing for downvotes, but I really think that having professional immunologists/scientists/etc. interacting directly with Twitter masses off of fresh-off-the-presses data (weak data, at that) is a mistake. For a few reasons: (a) it creates an environment where everyone wants to "break the news" first, even if it's full of hot takes, incorrect, or incendiary. This isn't a big deal when breaking who the Kardashians are dating, but it's very dangerous when talking about public health policy. And (b), there's zero accountability. If this entire thread ends up being wrong -- as so many of these Twitter hot takes have been proven to be wrong from last year -- no one cares. It's memory holed, and the good professor is just happy for the 15-minute limelight today, without worrying about what happens tomorrow.
I know this is not a particularly popular opinion, but I think we have things like peer review, the three sigma rule of thumb, and so on, for good reason. It's disappointing to see scientists spew out an entire thread and then cap it off with "just my opinion, so who knows" -- just as dishonest as crypto pumpers and their "not financial advice" disclaimers. Give me a break.
I'm happy you got your Twitter engagement though, that's what it's all about.
I know this is not a particularly popular opinion, but I think we have things like peer review, the three sigma rule of thumb, and so on, for good reason. It's disappointing to see scientists spew out an entire thread and then cap it off with "just my opinion, so who knows" -- just as dishonest as crypto pumpers and their "not financial advice" disclaimers. Give me a break.
I'm happy you got your Twitter engagement though, that's what it's all about.
You’re not wrong. On the one hand it’s great to have a public forum for science, on the other I’ve learned I can’t vet it at all, so I should wait until they get farther along before reacting at all. After all, Twitter has predicted 45 of the last 2 consequential variants.
As an individual that’s fine. As a society, we’ve got you and me who’ve learned to hold back, friends and alarmists who react to every signal to their own detriment and risk drowning out the real message, and we’ve got disillusioned trolls who cherry-pick the noise to “prove” scientists aren’t trustworthy.
I don’t know if it’s possible to have the open conversation while cooling off the side effects.
As an individual that’s fine. As a society, we’ve got you and me who’ve learned to hold back, friends and alarmists who react to every signal to their own detriment and risk drowning out the real message, and we’ve got disillusioned trolls who cherry-pick the noise to “prove” scientists aren’t trustworthy.
I don’t know if it’s possible to have the open conversation while cooling off the side effects.
On the other hand, professional immunologists/scientists/etc on twitter have posted stuff on Twitter that governments wanted to suppress or just didn't care enough to act on.
For example look The Seattle Flu Study Story at https://stratechery.com/2020/zero-trust-information/
For example look The Seattle Flu Study Story at https://stratechery.com/2020/zero-trust-information/
Yes but in this case the poster is commenting on a public statement from the South African government so we're typically not in the situation you're talking about.
That's a tough one. I had a similar reaction: this is science, not tabloid, why are we mixing the two? On the other hand, Twitter is a weird-ass mechanism that can disseminate all sorts of information instantly. On the third hand, information is not knowledge, they are two very different things: Knowledge is power, Information seems to cause chaos.
I'd prefer we stick to the research paper format for stuff like this where there is a distinct space for results, and a distinct space for conclusions. Let's make knowledge out of the information first.
I'd prefer we stick to the research paper format for stuff like this where there is a distinct space for results, and a distinct space for conclusions. Let's make knowledge out of the information first.
This pretty much concurs with the current BBC reporting, just with more graphs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59418127 It's honestly better than I'd expect from any of the usual American publications these days as well.
...and the UK just banned all flights from South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho and Eswatini: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59424269
TIL Swaziland got renamed Eswatini in 2018
[deleted]
I’m not sure why people are posting Twitter threads but this is headline news, at least in the UK, and that news doesn’t seem to stem from this thread. The UK has also added several southern African customers to the travel red list again and they aren’t doing that late in the evening based on a random Twitter thread.
I think twitter hot takes are fine. That's what twitter is for. It's just a discussion, a way to test ideas.
The problem is people considering twitter comments as facts and basing their medical decisions off of them.
The problem is people considering twitter comments as facts and basing their medical decisions off of them.
> there's zero accountability. If this entire thread ends up being wrong -- as so many of these Twitter hot takes have been proven to be wrong from last year -- no one cares.
It is true in many cases, but I feel like anyone who has contributed _as an expert in epidemiology_ has a good track record on correcting their statements. Did I miss anything worrisome?
It is true in many cases, but I feel like anyone who has contributed _as an expert in epidemiology_ has a good track record on correcting their statements. Did I miss anything worrisome?
This assumes that a correction or retraction will necessarily spread with the same dynamics of the original statement. The distribution network, and the motivations of other actors spreading the information, is more important the person making the original statement. In this case, much of Twitter is the appeal to emotional responses, not rational ones. And as a medium for information conveyance is just terrible (16 tweets for something like this is evidence of that fact). Given that, I expect that any real value to the message here will be completely lost, as would that of any correction or retraction, because those amplifying the message will be doing so on the basis of their own prior sentiments on response to the diseases.
All considered I feel the point of the original comment.
All considered I feel the point of the original comment.
On twitter, the correction should have the roughly same audience as the original — unless you stop following the author. People who amplified the original still share that amplification.
My point still stand: I have not seen an epidemiologist write something that proved false without a clarification. Non-specialist write uninformed things but it’s not really new.
My point still stand: I have not seen an epidemiologist write something that proved false without a clarification. Non-specialist write uninformed things but it’s not really new.
There are scammer epidemiologists. Dr. Eric Fiegl-Ding is one of them who also has a Twitter profile.
A good write up on him is here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/coronavirus-alarmist-eric-feig...
A good write up on him is here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/coronavirus-alarmist-eric-feig...
For anyone wondering, Wikipedia says:
Feigl-Ding holds doctorates in both epidemiology and nutrition, with his professional experience in nutritional epidemiology and epidemiology of chronic disease. Since this professional experience and research work are not in infectious disease epidemiology, the subfield most relevant to COVID-19, Feigl-Ding has been criticized for offering viral social media and other media commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic.
---
I think readers should form their own opinion on whether to label him a "scammer epidemiologist".
Feigl-Ding holds doctorates in both epidemiology and nutrition, with his professional experience in nutritional epidemiology and epidemiology of chronic disease. Since this professional experience and research work are not in infectious disease epidemiology, the subfield most relevant to COVID-19, Feigl-Ding has been criticized for offering viral social media and other media commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic.
---
I think readers should form their own opinion on whether to label him a "scammer epidemiologist".
> feel like anyone who has contributed _as an expert in epidemiology_ has a good track record on correcting their statements
I think this feeling would be misguided: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447267/ -- retractions have been basically non-existent. On the scientist or the journalist side.
I think this feeling would be misguided: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447267/ -- retractions have been basically non-existent. On the scientist or the journalist side.
The only reference to a forecast in that article is a "chair of the department of medical ethics", not an epidemiologist, on a television program, not a tweet that they can comment.
The primary author seems to have a lot of incorrect positions though:
"Ioannidis estimated that deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 could potentially be as low as 10,000—or they could approach levels not seen since the flu pandemic of 1918"
"writing to President Trump of his concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of lockdowns"
And just like with the Y2K bug one of the issues with takes like this is that it ignores all of the work that people did to prevent it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there were no vaccines, lockdowns or similar health measures maybe the predictions would have been accurate.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ioannidis-aff...
"Ioannidis estimated that deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 could potentially be as low as 10,000—or they could approach levels not seen since the flu pandemic of 1918"
"writing to President Trump of his concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of lockdowns"
And just like with the Y2K bug one of the issues with takes like this is that it ignores all of the work that people did to prevent it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there were no vaccines, lockdowns or similar health measures maybe the predictions would have been accurate.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ioannidis-aff...
Eh, Indy SAGE (of which the author is a member) can be quite cranky. Just because the UK Government are terrible and SAGE advise the UK Government doesn't intrinsically make Indy SAGE any good.
Specifically, Indy SAGE are eternal doom-mongers. Most of what they say is completely out of proportion in this vaccines era of COVID.
They also scream “close the borders” _all_ _the_ _damn_ _time_. This is (a) generally pointless when COVID is everywhere, and moreover the UK is doing worse than many countries. Also, (b), it helps perpetuate the UK's dangerous anti migrant rhetoric. Just yesterday people drowned in the English Channel as a result of the UK's hostility to refugees, and a bunch of xenophobic politicians feigned horror.
Specifically, Indy SAGE are eternal doom-mongers. Most of what they say is completely out of proportion in this vaccines era of COVID.
They also scream “close the borders” _all_ _the_ _damn_ _time_. This is (a) generally pointless when COVID is everywhere, and moreover the UK is doing worse than many countries. Also, (b), it helps perpetuate the UK's dangerous anti migrant rhetoric. Just yesterday people drowned in the English Channel as a result of the UK's hostility to refugees, and a bunch of xenophobic politicians feigned horror.
[deleted]
Agree, but I would widen this critique quite far into Twitter and social media in general. The motivation to promulgate information, factual or otherwise, on social media is attention-seeking, not truth-seeking. The method is sticky because it rewards attention-seeking with the desired attention, thereby optimizing on the kind of information, factual or not, that gains attention.
However, had the link been one of the many news articles on this topic rather than a tweetbarf, I think this comment would not be at the top, and we'd be talking about the virus instead.
However, had the link been one of the many news articles on this topic rather than a tweetbarf, I think this comment would not be at the top, and we'd be talking about the virus instead.
Tough call here. If it ramps up the pressure to stop this before it spreads to quickly thats a win - the risk is if it isn't as dangerous and the new rules cause backlash amongst the fatigue.
Also putting that information out into twitter will get to the right people and the wrong people (i.e. people who can understand whats she's saying and people who aren't) and then the information gets used in multiple different ways.
Yes hot takes are risky.
Also putting that information out into twitter will get to the right people and the wrong people (i.e. people who can understand whats she's saying and people who aren't) and then the information gets used in multiple different ways.
Yes hot takes are risky.
I think you’ll find it’s a popular opion, but not one you’ll find espoused much on Twitter. I like to think you and people like me are the “silent majority”.
While it’s fascinating to see this stuff out in Public, it’s the same kind of fascination I had when Trump started diplomacy via Twitter, or when I saw my neighbours have a shouted domestic argument on their front lawn…
While it’s fascinating to see this stuff out in Public, it’s the same kind of fascination I had when Trump started diplomacy via Twitter, or when I saw my neighbours have a shouted domestic argument on their front lawn…
This is more for other scientists, science-twitter is quite a big thing and often how scientists communicate new results, pre-prints, job-postings etc. It's just sad that the media and lay-people are ruining one of the only positives twitter provides.
Everything you just wrote applies equally well to traditional mass media.
Could not agree more. I also strongly disagree with the use of highly emotive words like "horrific" mutations. Exactly how are they horrific, given how little anyone knows about this variant? In my opinion, it's incredibly irresponsible public fearmongering.
FWIW my trust in academia, and specifically medical, will never return.
FWIW my trust in academia, and specifically medical, will never return.
If lies ran, and truth walks, twitter has supersonic jets.
A good read on this is “Contrarian Doctors: The Pandemic is Over, Again”.
See: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pandemic-is-over-again/
I knew that the pandemic was far from over with in the US even with the mass vaccination campaign being declared mostly a success this summer.
On a worldwide scale, given the rates plus the raw numbers in locales plus mobility within borders along with people crossing borders...it simply did not add up.
Plus, Americans are a very polarized group of people. (I say this as an American citizen living abroad who is also culturally American and has lived there the vast majority of her life.). Some counties in the United States had 25-30% vaccination rates at best right before the fall season. (I have not recently checked.)
But, I do recall reading that the US created a model (which of course is frequently being updated) for coronavirus spike protein mutations that would predict when the virus was statistically likely to evolve in such a way. I think it was a DARPA funded program or something like that. So, it’s not like this new “big news” came out of nowhere.
But, what is going on in the ascribed South African province in the above linked Tweet is unlikely to just be random coincidence. First, it is South Africa’s most populated province at around 15 million people. Second, it’s nearly summer in South Africa and it’s been hot there. Overall, we need people to investigate and for people to stop transmitting things that are not covered well and balanced, making many of us susceptible to confirmation bias.
But, stopping virus transmission altogether should have been our goal worldwide. Very few countries have succeeded. Yes, the WHO failed but so did the vast majority of the world’s countries.
See: Covid pandemic was preventable, says WHO-commissioned report: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/covid-pandemic...
See: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pandemic-is-over-again/
I knew that the pandemic was far from over with in the US even with the mass vaccination campaign being declared mostly a success this summer.
On a worldwide scale, given the rates plus the raw numbers in locales plus mobility within borders along with people crossing borders...it simply did not add up.
Plus, Americans are a very polarized group of people. (I say this as an American citizen living abroad who is also culturally American and has lived there the vast majority of her life.). Some counties in the United States had 25-30% vaccination rates at best right before the fall season. (I have not recently checked.)
But, I do recall reading that the US created a model (which of course is frequently being updated) for coronavirus spike protein mutations that would predict when the virus was statistically likely to evolve in such a way. I think it was a DARPA funded program or something like that. So, it’s not like this new “big news” came out of nowhere.
But, what is going on in the ascribed South African province in the above linked Tweet is unlikely to just be random coincidence. First, it is South Africa’s most populated province at around 15 million people. Second, it’s nearly summer in South Africa and it’s been hot there. Overall, we need people to investigate and for people to stop transmitting things that are not covered well and balanced, making many of us susceptible to confirmation bias.
But, stopping virus transmission altogether should have been our goal worldwide. Very few countries have succeeded. Yes, the WHO failed but so did the vast majority of the world’s countries.
See: Covid pandemic was preventable, says WHO-commissioned report: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/covid-pandemic...
Deeply agree with your sentiment, yet, information yearns to be free? No not quite the right catchphrase. As a society we need mechanisms developed to rapidly peer review at a kind of instant level, "quality report", "new untrusted", "rehash of wacko". Some indication. Sometimes some twitter threads that are authentic do this. The disinformation threads badly need stronger vetting,
and rapid discrediting or deletion.
I think the history of COVID disagrees with this.
If the scientist is completely wrong then the impact is that governments and the public took precautions that were unnecessary. But most of those impacts e.g. banning visitors from hot-spots, stronger health measures e.g. mask-wearing come with limited downsides and potentially huge upsides i.e. saving lives.
So it seems like that scientists should do more to engage with the public and communicate any potential threats as clearly and early as possible.
If the scientist is completely wrong then the impact is that governments and the public took precautions that were unnecessary. But most of those impacts e.g. banning visitors from hot-spots, stronger health measures e.g. mask-wearing come with limited downsides and potentially huge upsides i.e. saving lives.
So it seems like that scientists should do more to engage with the public and communicate any potential threats as clearly and early as possible.
"limited downsides"
https://news.yahoo.com/remote-learning-led-to-catastrophic-l...
https://www.wfp.org/stories/hunger-pandemic-food-security-re...
https://gazette.com/business/nearly-40-of-u-s-small-business... https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-imp...
https://news.yahoo.com/remote-learning-led-to-catastrophic-l...
https://www.wfp.org/stories/hunger-pandemic-food-security-re...
https://gazette.com/business/nearly-40-of-u-s-small-business... https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-imp...
That is what happens when you don't act early.
You end up with aggressive, last-resort measures like extended lockdowns.
Hence my point that there is minimal downside to being overly cautious when you first hear about new variants.
You end up with aggressive, last-resort measures like extended lockdowns.
Hence my point that there is minimal downside to being overly cautious when you first hear about new variants.
I call this the "No True Lockdown" argument. If they fail to indefinitely prevent significant outbreaks (and in nearly every case they have), well, it just means they weren't implemented soon enough. Even if they drag on for weeks and months with zero cases, only to have an outbreak at the slightest loosening of restrictions. I guess the idea is that if the entire world did this at once the virus would disappear? Completely unworkable, and almost surely false, given the existence of animal reservoirs.
Your entire framing of these policy choices as inevitable and the only option is baseless. Australia and New Zealand used to be held up as the shining lights of "just act fast enough and you can avoid the need for any sustained restrictions" and now we are seeing just how well kicking the can in that way actually works, and the lengths that must be gone to keep kicking it.
Your entire framing of these policy choices as inevitable and the only option is baseless. Australia and New Zealand used to be held up as the shining lights of "just act fast enough and you can avoid the need for any sustained restrictions" and now we are seeing just how well kicking the can in that way actually works, and the lengths that must be gone to keep kicking it.
I don't know, I'm still pretty happy to be living in new Zealand, with our death rate 1/300th of the US or UK.
> This isn't a big deal when breaking who the Kardashians are dating, but it's very dangerous when talking about public health policy.
https://twitter.com/ungeneva/status/1244661916535930886 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1234871709091667969
Also remember, it's not airborne and sanitizing surfaces is all it takes.
https://twitter.com/ungeneva/status/1244661916535930886 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1234871709091667969
Also remember, it's not airborne and sanitizing surfaces is all it takes.
I'm not sure I understand - that was the official position at the time, not a 'hot take' on Twitter. The problem with experts getting it wrong is experts getting it wrong, not the unfiltered fire hose that is Twitter.
Edit: To clarify this is not a judgement on experts getting things wrong. Experts can't know everything.
Edit: To clarify this is not a judgement on experts getting things wrong. Experts can't know everything.
Is it? What's the danger? Now that B.1.1.529 is out there, what changes for you? The entire western world already pretends Covid is over.
Like, there is no call to action here. No one is looking to deceive you into buying an ape for the good of the arts.
Like, there is no call to action here. No one is looking to deceive you into buying an ape for the good of the arts.
sorry off topic, but what in the world is your last idiom there referring to? is there something i don’t know about art grants and the underground primate market?
(while i’m asking, why is everything in the future so heavy?)
(while i’m asking, why is everything in the future so heavy?)
It's a reference to Bored Ape Yacht Club a popular - at least with Crypto people - series of NFTs. If you use Twitter and follow any Crypto people/VCs you might have seen them as profile pictures. One of these sold for $200k. It's a JPEG :)
* face palm * yes ofc I am surrounded by bored apes but never would have connected it to being a patron of the arts, hah!
Where there is a partially vaccinated population, yet still widespread infection, then there will be strong selection pressure for vaccine immune escape (and indeed prior infection immune escape).
It may not be this variant, but if such an escape variant emerged, it would quickly spread - assuming the mutations don't interfere too much with viability and transmission.
Vaccines, with other measures as necessary, should be used to suppress a highly contagious virus to nearly zero (trigger warning!!) to prevent this from happening.
It may not be this variant, but if such an escape variant emerged, it would quickly spread - assuming the mutations don't interfere too much with viability and transmission.
Vaccines, with other measures as necessary, should be used to suppress a highly contagious virus to nearly zero (trigger warning!!) to prevent this from happening.
Why can't they come up with a better name like security vulnerabilities have nowadays?
I travelled in UK and it seems you do have to do an antigen tests when you get in as a traveller. Is antigen test able to detect this variant?
It can detect it as a positive result, it can't distinguish between variants.
What feature of the virus does the anitgen test detect? If this one has so many mutations, it's not a ridiculous question.
I don't know the answer, but related: I read the manual that came with the new self tests and it mentioned what else it reacted to, like some micrograms of influenza type such and such. There was a whole host of things it responded to. They seem to just detect extremely broadly. Previous self tests didn't include this, I found it quite interesting.
Is there any reason to believe that higher infectivity should correlate with lower lethality? i.e. the virus which keeps its host alive the longest has greatest opportunity to replicate and spread?
Yes, there's kind of a triad of attributes that affects a virus and it's ability to cause a pandemic. Virulence (how sick people become), transmissibility (how easy does it spread), lethality (can it kill at high rate).
-higher virulence causes people to stay at home more, and less spread in community
-higher transmissibility means more spread person to person
-high lethality means people die faster and not spread as fast
SARS and MERS before SARS-COV2(COVID) all had high lethality and therefore those that were infected didn't get a chance to transmit to others that well, and likely helped slow the spread. COVID seems to have a good balance between the three.
The above is a big simplification, but the general idea sticks.
-higher virulence causes people to stay at home more, and less spread in community
-higher transmissibility means more spread person to person
-high lethality means people die faster and not spread as fast
SARS and MERS before SARS-COV2(COVID) all had high lethality and therefore those that were infected didn't get a chance to transmit to others that well, and likely helped slow the spread. COVID seems to have a good balance between the three.
The above is a big simplification, but the general idea sticks.
Your model is missing one big variable and that is latency, the time difference between when people are most contagious and when they are symptomatic.
SARS-1 had low latency, and so people tended to become contagious and symptomatic at around the same time, reducing transmission. Whereas SARS-2 has a high latency which helps it to spread while people are unaware they even have it. This also insulates SARS-2 from selective pressure to reduce its virulence.
SARS-1 had low latency, and so people tended to become contagious and symptomatic at around the same time, reducing transmission. Whereas SARS-2 has a high latency which helps it to spread while people are unaware they even have it. This also insulates SARS-2 from selective pressure to reduce its virulence.
It should be noted that for Sars-Cov-2 specifically (i.e. given a virus that has the properties of Sars-Cov-2 already) lethality will likely be a neutral factor for the evolution going forward. The reason being that viral titres peak around day 2 in a window of 1-5 days, whereas it takes at lot longer to die from Covid. In other words there is same sort of cap where lethality prevents transmission, but Sars-Cov-2 is nowhere near it.
Keep in mind that imperfect vaccination shifts this triad in the direction of higher sustainable lethality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek's_disease
In both the natural and leaky-vaccine scenarios, the virus evolves towards an ecological equilibrium, but in the leaky-vaccine scenario, that equilibrium is shifted in the direction of greater lethality. See the linked article: as a direct consequence of mass vaccination of chickens, Marek's diseased evolved from a minor illness into a highly-virulent, highly-transmissible disease that causes 100% lethal cancer in chickens unless the chicks are vaccinated before they hatch from their eggs.
In both the natural and leaky-vaccine scenarios, the virus evolves towards an ecological equilibrium, but in the leaky-vaccine scenario, that equilibrium is shifted in the direction of greater lethality. See the linked article: as a direct consequence of mass vaccination of chickens, Marek's diseased evolved from a minor illness into a highly-virulent, highly-transmissible disease that causes 100% lethal cancer in chickens unless the chicks are vaccinated before they hatch from their eggs.
What do you think about this article, by the author of the Marek’s disease study, that criticizes extrapolating from the chicken scenario to the covid scenario?:
https://theconversation.com/amp/vaccines-could-affect-how-th...
https://theconversation.com/amp/vaccines-could-affect-how-th...
The core argument is that Marek kills in 10 days or less, which is too soon for viral spread to happen. MDV vaccines keep chickens from dying, thus spread of hot variants can occur. Since covid doesn't kill that much, Marek phenomenon can't happen. The obvious issue with the argument is that the hot lethal variants are observed post vaccine availability. Earlier strains were "mild" or "virulent", but not "very virulent plus". "Death was relatively rare".
From an 1998 article on Marek, there appear to have been at least 3 jumps in Marek virulence, one in the late '50s pre vaccines (mild => virulent) and two post vaccine availability (virulent => very virulent, very virulent => very virulent plus), see chart on page S50.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0307945980841929...
From Andrew Read's own 2015 article:
"MDV became increasingly virulent over the second half of the 20th century [19,21–24]. Until the 1950s, strains of MDV circulating on poultry farms caused a mildly paralytic disease, with lesions largely restricted to peripheral nervous tissue. Death was relatively rare. Today, hyperpathogenic strains are present worldwide. These strains induce lymphomas in a wide range of organs and mortality rates of up to 100% in unvaccinated birds."
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...
The conclusion of the rebuttal article you linked to is rather terrifying. If there ever was a "the road to [chicken] Hell is paved with good intentions", this is it.
"In the history of human and animal vaccines, there have not been many cases of vaccine-driven evolution. But in every one of them, individuals and populations have always been better off when vaccinated. At every point in the 50-year history of vaccination against Marek’s disease, an individual chicken exposed to the virus was healthier if it was vaccinated."
From an 1998 article on Marek, there appear to have been at least 3 jumps in Marek virulence, one in the late '50s pre vaccines (mild => virulent) and two post vaccine availability (virulent => very virulent, very virulent => very virulent plus), see chart on page S50.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0307945980841929...
From Andrew Read's own 2015 article:
"MDV became increasingly virulent over the second half of the 20th century [19,21–24]. Until the 1950s, strains of MDV circulating on poultry farms caused a mildly paralytic disease, with lesions largely restricted to peripheral nervous tissue. Death was relatively rare. Today, hyperpathogenic strains are present worldwide. These strains induce lymphomas in a wide range of organs and mortality rates of up to 100% in unvaccinated birds."
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...
The conclusion of the rebuttal article you linked to is rather terrifying. If there ever was a "the road to [chicken] Hell is paved with good intentions", this is it.
"In the history of human and animal vaccines, there have not been many cases of vaccine-driven evolution. But in every one of them, individuals and populations have always been better off when vaccinated. At every point in the 50-year history of vaccination against Marek’s disease, an individual chicken exposed to the virus was healthier if it was vaccinated."
> The obvious issue with the argument is that the hot lethal variants are observed post vaccine availability.
But is that true? Which hot lethal variants arose post vaccine availability?
But is that true? Which hot lethal variants arose post vaccine availability?
From 1998 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0307945980841929..., page S50, Figure 4: BIVAL vv (late 70s) then RISPENS vv+ (early 90s). The text:
"The three major pathotype shifts are:
(1) from m MDV to v MDV strains in the late 1950s;
(2) from v MDV to vv MDV in the late 1970s;
(3) the appearance of the putative vv + pathotype in the early 1990s (Figure 4).
Each occurrence has been associated with greater disease losses which have persisted until introduction of the next generation of vaccine. The reason for the shifts remain speculative. Shifts in the 1970s and 1990s may have been in response to certain MD vaccines. Kreager (1996) has suggested vaccines may have only a 10-year useful life before new strains evolve. The shift in the 1950s occurred prior to vaccine use, but may have been related to changes in poultry husbandry, especially the move towards larger houses and the increasing density of poultry operations in certain geographic regions"
m = mild, v = virulent, vv = very virulent, vv+ = very virulent plus, as explained on page S46, Table 1.
To be very clear, Marek is not covid. I am drawing no equivalence. I just point out that Andrew Read's 2021 articlet is built around a weak argument.
"The three major pathotype shifts are:
(1) from m MDV to v MDV strains in the late 1950s;
(2) from v MDV to vv MDV in the late 1970s;
(3) the appearance of the putative vv + pathotype in the early 1990s (Figure 4).
Each occurrence has been associated with greater disease losses which have persisted until introduction of the next generation of vaccine. The reason for the shifts remain speculative. Shifts in the 1970s and 1990s may have been in response to certain MD vaccines. Kreager (1996) has suggested vaccines may have only a 10-year useful life before new strains evolve. The shift in the 1950s occurred prior to vaccine use, but may have been related to changes in poultry husbandry, especially the move towards larger houses and the increasing density of poultry operations in certain geographic regions"
m = mild, v = virulent, vv = very virulent, vv+ = very virulent plus, as explained on page S46, Table 1.
To be very clear, Marek is not covid. I am drawing no equivalence. I just point out that Andrew Read's 2021 articlet is built around a weak argument.
Yes... and no.
There is selection pressure on the virus to avoid severe symptoms, because hosts that are up and being sociable are better vectors for the virus than hosts that are in bed or hooked up to tubes in hospital.
However, there is also selection pressure for the virus to infect cells more efficiently and reproduce in greater quantities. These traits tend to correlate with the virus being more dangerous to the host.
The way the virus transmits before the host becomes symptomatic is quite an effective strategy for the virus, and means the selection pressure for the virus to not cause symptoms is less than it otherwise would be.
There is selection pressure on the virus to avoid severe symptoms, because hosts that are up and being sociable are better vectors for the virus than hosts that are in bed or hooked up to tubes in hospital.
However, there is also selection pressure for the virus to infect cells more efficiently and reproduce in greater quantities. These traits tend to correlate with the virus being more dangerous to the host.
The way the virus transmits before the host becomes symptomatic is quite an effective strategy for the virus, and means the selection pressure for the virus to not cause symptoms is less than it otherwise would be.
The pull request
https://github.com/cov-lineages/pango-designation/issues/343
Sucks to be the South African government: too poor to vaccinate efficiently, shares data with rest of the world in "excellent" meetings, gets immediately quarantined via airline bans. And then we wonder why countries tend to be secretive...
Note I'm not saying we shouldn't trigger transfer bans (we should), but there should be a compensation mechanism that goes with them - like money or free vaccines. Otherwise poor countries have no incentive to cooperate.
Note I'm not saying we shouldn't trigger transfer bans (we should), but there should be a compensation mechanism that goes with them - like money or free vaccines. Otherwise poor countries have no incentive to cooperate.
South Africa's big problem with vaccination right now seems to be that they're running out of willing people to vaccinate - they just postponed a bunch of vaccine deliveries because their current stockpile is big enough already, and apparently a lot of people there are reluctant to get the vaccine.
This is entirely it - we have plenty of vaccines, there's no queue at vaccination centres, people just aren't getting vaccinated.
Another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29345194.
Something that's frustrating about this type of situation which is probably going to arise many more times over the next few years; time is of the essence in this type of situation, and whilst detailed research into the nature of the mutations in this variant takes time, but basic data that doesn't take much time to gather is still not being shared.
When hearing about a bunch of cases discovered to have this new variant, it would help to assess the situation if we knew data related to each case: vaccination status, age, viral load, severity, etc.
All those details must have been collected already, and would indicate exactly how much of a concern the new variant is or isn't.
When hearing about a bunch of cases discovered to have this new variant, it would help to assess the situation if we knew data related to each case: vaccination status, age, viral load, severity, etc.
All those details must have been collected already, and would indicate exactly how much of a concern the new variant is or isn't.
Is it more lethal and transmissible? I couldn't find any info on that? If yes to both, than RIP.
Might be a blessing in disguise. People will become afraid well before it reaches their country. Maybe we actually have the willpower to stop it if it's actually quite lethal, and then it's indeed RIP (COVID). Since we apparently can't manage to announce a few months ahead a global 2 week lockdown, just stock up and afterwards nobody is infectious anymore. For the few essential people that need to be out (doctors, caretakers, police), switch on the last day and they now isolate for two weeks. Probably best to also add self-tests to the mix towards the end of the two weeks. Instead, so far, we'd rather have intermittent half-assed lockdowns for years on end and millions of deaths. Idk, a proper lethal variant (with the infectiousness before symptoms like it is now, else it wouldn't spread) might motivate us to solve the problem rather than to keep failing to try.
It's functionally impossible to have a global lockdown. Absolutely impossible for every country in the world at the same time. Just think outside your continent for 3 minutes.
Developing worlds, populations with millions living in poverty. Billions of people without the money to buy things two weeks in advance. Millions of food producers without the facility to produce and store 2 weeks worth of things for people. Now consider enforcement, healthcare, transportation, logistics, communication, borders, active wars and civil wars going on right now, etc. Let alone the normal international political cooperation needed.
It's actually totally impossible for it to happen simultaneously at a global level. I'd say it's probably also impossible for the majority of countries in the world (i.e. not rich) to have an effective lockdown at all at any time.
Developing worlds, populations with millions living in poverty. Billions of people without the money to buy things two weeks in advance. Millions of food producers without the facility to produce and store 2 weeks worth of things for people. Now consider enforcement, healthcare, transportation, logistics, communication, borders, active wars and civil wars going on right now, etc. Let alone the normal international political cooperation needed.
It's actually totally impossible for it to happen simultaneously at a global level. I'd say it's probably also impossible for the majority of countries in the world (i.e. not rich) to have an effective lockdown at all at any time.
Even with a global lockdown, there will always be a reservoir of virus somewhere.
Some immunocompromised people can carry the virus for weeks.
Also, what about households where one person catches COVID the day before lockdown, incubates for a few days (asymptomatically), then transmits it to another person in the household, who also incubates for a few days...
At the end of the two week lockdowns, some people will still be contagious.
Some immunocompromised people can carry the virus for weeks.
Also, what about households where one person catches COVID the day before lockdown, incubates for a few days (asymptomatically), then transmits it to another person in the household, who also incubates for a few days...
At the end of the two week lockdowns, some people will still be contagious.
1 Month lockdown, then to travel from anywhere to anywhere you need to stay in isolation for 20 days. I wish this was possible.