New coronavirus variant: What do we know?
bbc.com
bbc.com
You need to scroll back about 2 days to get the latest info (and he refers to the Twitter accounts of others in the field who can give more information).
His Twitter profile is @ https://twitter.com/ewanbirney/
(Ewan is awesome - he is also (co)director of EMBL-EBI European Bioinformatics Institute, and I had the honour (as a Computer Scientist) of working there for nine years)
Also, I doubt twitter is the place where that information should live long-term anyway.
Well, I think I'll have to adapt to ditch a website that needs a shit-ton of JS to serve me a few KibiBytes of content.
The only definitively factual statement he makes is in the first tweet:
"One of the key questions about the new variant (B.1.1.7) is whether there is conclusive evidence that it is more transmissible. I don't think we are absolutely certain yet"
Everything else is speculation. He says that founder effect is not likely because the virus is spreading widely, nationwide: this is a hypothesis, not a statement of fact. He says that there are reasons to believe that the mutations are associated with structural regions known to be important to transmission: this is a hypothesis, not a statement of fact.
He then says that because of these two unproven hypotheses (which he implicitly believes), one should "change your priors" on how likely it is that this strain is selectively advantaged. Certainly, one can "change their priors" based on personal opinion, but that doesn't mean that other informed scientists don't have different opinions.
What this guy is doing is citing the (limited, non-definitive) evidence that we know, and then saying he has an opinion about what it all means. That doesn't make it factual.
Without well-controlled cell-culture or animal studies that show that this strain is out-competing other strains in vivo, we don't have solid evidence either way. Trying to predict the organism-level impact of point mutations is a fun parlor game, but no more or less definitive than asking a sports fan which team is going to win on Sunday.
By pointing to an unpredictable external factor they can justify the apparent U-turn in their policy, while also not having to point the finger at any potential voters who may not have been following the rules well enough.
Whether the government's political needs have an effect on how scientists interpret or represent their findings is something I only have a hypothesis about.
This! I strongly agree that one should not mix up scientific hard knowledge with hypotheses, statements of likelihood, educated guesses and so on.
However, I do not agree at all with the demand that you always need to be 100% sure to act decisively on something important. That is just not how life works!
It does not work like that in the small. If you are a parent and you smell smoke, and your children are playing upstairs, there is no requirement that you know with certainty there is a fire before you get your kids out of the house. You get them out.
If you are a bus driver packed full with people chopping a long a foggy motorway in the morning, and three hundred meters ahead appears something which looks like an overthrown heavy truck, you do not need to be 100& certain to hit the brakes. You brake.
If you are captain of a frigate in heavy weather and with serious navigation difficulties, and ahead appears something which looks damn likely like a rock or a VLCC, you do not need absolute certainty to change course. You just change.
And in fact we demand the same from industrial and military leaders all the time. It is even one defining element of leadership to act both wisely and decidedly under uncertain conditions.
And now, we go and demand that the evidence we get from scientists has 100% certainty before we act. That's wrong. It is not intelligent behaviour because a lot of things will have irreversible consequences before we have certainty about the situation.
(And interestingly, we have seen exactly the same pattern on the topic of climate change.)
Usually, those people are wrong.
Just a question:
If two weeks from now, it becomes evident that more than 90 % of all infections in the UK are with the new variant, would you change your opinion?
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1340913688992165888
> "14) “In the lab, Gupta’s group found that virus carrying the two mutations was less susceptible to convalescent plasma from several donors than the wildtype (common strain) virus. That suggests it can evade antibodies targeting the wildtype virus”!!"
Could that mean that the "herd immunity strategy" by letting relatively healthy people being infected by the virus might fail utterly because the immunity they acquire does not help very much against the new variant?
Some points they made:
"It's a variant. It's not a strain. A strain is a virus with a new biological property. There have been no new properties ascribed to this isolate other than sequence differences, which is not enough to make a strain.. nor have we seen any other new strains of SARS-CoV-2 that anybody's demonstrated to be biologically different. None. It hasn't happened yet. I'm not saying it couldn't but it hasn't."
"Nobody's done any experiments to determine the effects of these changes on any property of the virus. Yet when a journalist calls up a scientist and say "What do you think?" and the scientist says "These could have an effect on virulence or transmission or antibody neutralization," somehow that gets translated in to "It's making the virus more virulent" and that's what's circulated and a dozen people this week said to me "What do you think about these mutations in the UK that make the virus more virulent, more transmissible, more resistant to neutralization by antibodies?" None of that has been shown, folks! It's speculation. There's no paper on any of this."
[1] - Starting at about 54 minutes in to episode 696: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-696/
Commercial news media is so far from critical analysis that it's dangerous that we allow it anywhere near our decision making processes.
This has been an incredibly large issue for almost a year now and it's ridiculous. Journalists not understanding the way scientists speak was vaguely understandable ten months ago, but after a year straight of science being the number one news maker in the world it's obvious that the media is just use it as an excuse to scare-monger and increase their clicks.
Literally every day in the last few weeks I've had to explain to someone that vaccines will almost certainly have a profound impact on if people can transmit the virus because the news articles keep taking the "We don't have data yet on how it impacts transmission" and reporting that as the worst case scenario, when in all likelihood it will profoundly diminish people's ability to transmit the virus.
Scientists have career-advancing reasons to have their opinions and research--whether confirmed by evidence and peer reviewed or not--distributed by the media. And the media has incentive to amplify concerning or controversial information.
What's tragic is that these hypotheses or conjectures are being used to make public policy decisions that affect millions or billions of people. And it seems that public servants and officials lack the scientific aptitude or inclination to truly understand how solid the data and conclusions are before acting on them. Or, perhaps more cynically, the officials know the conjecture is unverified but--being accountable to a public who will likely not read beyond the headlines and who will believe any article that starts with "Scientists find ..."--are forced to take action purely to hold the appearance of doing something.
Regardless of the directionality, I agree with the parent that 2020 is demonstrating serious flaws in the relationships between the scientific community, journalism, public policy makers, and the public.
I think the media has a real problem with reporting uncertainty. What's interesting is that there was a collective effort not to jump to conclusions and be careful when reporting on the presidential election. They showed they're capable of restraint when they think it's warranted, but with the pandemic they can't help but reach for the "Because of [unproven report] [consequence] is very likely" formula.
Couldn't agree with this more. The number of ill-conceived pre-print "studies" I've seen get released this year is disappointing. Tons of studies with either a tiny sample size and questionable methods (medicines given very late in the progression of the disease, control groups whose demographics don't remotely match the test group, etc.). And of course those studies get reported on with no indication they were poorly done.
I think the fundamental issue is that the public health measures break down once everyone doesn’t have to follow them. So either you refuse to admit that there’s no reason for a recovered COVID patient to wear a mask, or quarantine after close contact with a new case, etc.
Or else, if you admit that exemption, you either basically can’t enforce the rules anymore, or you need to track everyone who was infected and provide verifiable “passports” which is a step toward a dystopian future we should not allow.
I think in the end it’s easier to deny that there is true natural or vaccinated immunity than to deal with this conundrum head-on. However, at some point the admission must come, I can only hope in the April/May timeframe once vaccination is more widespread.
Newspapers are very willing to admit natural immunity. But scientists point out they don't know how effective it is, and/or how long lasting it is.
It's very clear newspapers have been way to casual with admitting natural immunity.
If you want some fairly clear evidence of this, if you were gonna ask a 1000 people whether they were immune if they got the virus and recovered from it, I suspect 999 of them would say yes. And you wouldnt get those numbers if newspapers were stating the opposite.
What the rest of your comment ignores is that we actually don't know whether people who are immune, can nevertheless transmit the disease. Furthermore, false positives do exist.
In fact, even people who are vaccinated will be advised to wear masks, because we do not know whether the vaccine prevents spread, or if it only protects the vaccinated. The Pfizer and Moderna trials did not factor this in their testing at all. I am not sure about the AstraZeneca one, but their trials have had a lot of issues anyways. And no other vaccine's trials have been completed yet.
E.g: A NYTimes article comparing natural immunity vs a vaccine from 2 weeks ago. Note the concept of natural immunity is considered a given, and is not even questioned (and it includes the statement, for example, "Natural immunity from the coronavirus is fortunately quite strong"):
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-natural-immu...
I don't think this is close to true. For example when Rand Paul claimed he had immunity after recovering from Covid, liberals I'm in casual contact with were jumping up and down screaming "he's not immune! he's not immune!" Of the maybe 10 people I know of who've had Covid and recovered, 2 are still actively worried and living in terror that they will get it again.
Journalists don't understand anything about the topics on which they write, but they regard themselves as paragons of virtue and arbiters of Truth with a capital T.
Trump is a garbage president but the one thing he got right was identifying the fourth estate as the enemy of the people. They were Enemies in March when they told everyone it was just the Flu, and NOT to wear masks, and they are are Enemies now when they whip the public into hysterics.
Nor is this anything new with Fox News, or CNN, or even with William Randolph Hearst, as some may claim. They have been the Enemy since time immemorial and they always will be.
Rosebud, indeed.
This assertion makes no sense at all. Journalists aren't expected to create their content from thin air. They are expected to talk with primary sources, ask them questions, gather the answers and information, and report on that to the public.
> Trump is a garbage president but the one thing he got right was identifying the fourth estate as the enemy of the people.
Oh give me a break. The only thing Trump did was come up with a populist angle to sell it to gullible idiots in the form of conspiracy theories. It makes absolutely no difference whether anything resembling Trump's conspiracy theories have a bearing in reality or not because as his term demonstrated he did rigorously zero to address, let alone fix, any of his pet conspiracy theories. He used them as a mariachi's guitar, just popping it out of the case whenever he felt he needed to prop up support from his base and back in the box it went when he felt things went his way.
I mean, just look at the way he boasted about voting by mail and afterwards he proceeded to fabricate all sorts of bullshit to discredit mail-id votes.
Not understanding or not wanting to understand? It's become fully mainstream to interpret the most scary or salacious or intriguing angle. I used to love the BBC and NYT but they are right up there with some of the worst, when it comes to the narratives and forced angles.
London and the South East are some of the densest populated areas in the UK, and one could expect exponential growth of infections there while other less populated areas could manage to keep their Rt around or bellow zero. If this strain was more prevalent in these regions, you would also see it taking a larger share of the infections nationwide.
However, the precautionary principle has been the keystone of good handling in the pandemic, so they are right to apply precautionary measures before it's too late. We will learn more about this strain in the next few weeks.
You are right that London is a densely populated area prone to easy spread for the virus but the same must be true for all variants. This variant started its existence as a single strand of viral DNA and has managed to spread far enough to become the dominant strand against competition from many other well established variants.
It could be random chance or a selective advantage, but then it comes down to just a modeling exercise. How likely is it that this could happen by chance? And it appears quite unlikely: instead the best way to explain the data is a significantly increased transmission.
The confidence intervals shown by PHE on potential increased transmissibility are also very wide (not the ones from the NERVTAG minutes, but the new analyses by PHE).
It needs larger sampling (already doing so, I'm sure) and some biological evidence.
My understanding on data gathering is that there have been two data sources: sequencing a 10% sample of the positive results, and using the fortuitous point about the three-target PCR tests showing one of the targets as negative for all such tests. Having two data sources is useful since the results from the sequencing are delayed by weeks.
But up to the point where they have both sets of data, the relative prevalence lines up very neatly. In particular, it cannot be that these results are coming from some other variant with the same 69-70 deletion.
(I don't think it's fair to suggest they implied it was a poor proxy in general. They said it was a poorer proxy the further back in time you go.)
Re: confidence intervals, the data they have from the relative prevalence of the new variant has pretty tight confidence intervals (95% CI: 1.34-1.59 R). That makes sense, because the modeling for that is really simple.
The confidence interval for trying to correlate prevalence of the variant vs growth rates is indeed quite wide. But it makes sense, because that's noisy data.
Yes, more data and more evidence will always be great. How many weeks are you willing to wait for it, before putting in new measures? How will that delay affect the epidemic curve if the findings so far are correct?
Yes, but one assumes that confounding factors like that are fairly easy to isolate. At some point, especially as the growth continues, statistics pretty much rules out other explanations. General consensus is that this is almost certainly more infectious. But sure, there's always more science to do.
That can happen when general incidence is very low, in a small region, or for a short time. But this is not any more the case here, and having this happening by chance is very unlikely.
For comparison, the Danish Serum Institute has a sequencing capacity about 5000 positive tests a week, a rate of around 25% of the positives at the current level.
Source, in Danish, from the Serum Institute:
https://www.ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/2020/ny-covid-virusstamme...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2...
> The variant can be found across the UK, except Northern Ireland, but it is heavily concentrated in London, the South East and eastern England. Cases elsewhere in the country do not seem to have taken off.
> Data from Nextstrain, which has been monitoring the genetic codes of the viral samples around the world, suggest cases in Denmark and Australia have come from the UK. The Netherlands has also reported cases.
However, this does not explains away that it appears to have much higher transmission.
See https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.16.423118v1
There is not enough data right now to be sure whether this new strain is more infectious or not, but from what I read there are a few more reasons to be concerned this time compared to the previous times when mutated strains were reported.
Let's hope it's nothing but I'm glad that measures have been taken now.
So I would think we're really only concerned with mutations in active regions that impact viability. We don't really care about mutations that decrease viability, since they'll generally be overcome by more viable versions of the virus naturally.
The question with this particular mutation is whether it's a variant or a strain. I.e. is this new variant more infectious? Which would make it a strain, not a variant.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873896/
> By far, the most widely studied trade-off involves transmission and virulence (Anderson and May, 1982; Frank, 1996; Alizon et al. 2009).
However, this is only true in the LONG RUN, when different variants have played out for a while.
In the short term, there could be a highly transimissible strain with a much higher mortality. It will eventually come to a point when the most common strains in a population are milder strains... but one of the reasons that happens is that hosts with immune systems unable to handle the strain die off... and those who survive do so because they can handle it better. So, at a later stage, it looks like the virus got milder, but:
- it doesn't generally apply to all strains
- the strains look mild later because only those for whom it was mild survive
It further drives me crazy because I am still disconnected from my family because the U.S. still refuses to allow my fiancée to travel back (she lives and works in the U.S.) from the country best dealing with this to to the worst. It's just sickening there's no support for people like us, and now it looks like it can only get worse in the west.
Note that the document appears to imply that WHO’s team will not be allowed to operate on the ground in China to collect evidence (see Phase 1 of Implementation plan, the paragraph about building on existing information and not duplicating existing efforts).
Note that the document does not mention the possibility of lab escape, despite documented evidence of SARS-CoV previously escaping from a lab in Beijing and resulting in at least one death years earlier, and the fact that Wuhan is home to another one of the very few BSL–4 labs.
I am tired of uninformed “who dealt it” finger-pointing as much as the next guy. First, we currently lack information. Second, even if we had that information, we should accept that mistakes happen (human factor and so on).
The only valid grounds for finger-pointing, as far as I’m concerned, is if someone attempts to undermine an effort aimed to make humanity better equipped to deal with a similar scenario in future.
[0] https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/who-convened-global-...
I heard this quote on a podcast recently, and somehow stuck with me, because it's quite amazing how we think that we can control somehow such a force of nature like a new virus: “Man cannot control the current of events. He can only float with them and steer.” Otto Von Bismarck.
Where was that suggested?
The most alarming thing to me is the public appetite for authoritarian policies.
Secondly, why is this an excuse to totally fail at handling the pandemic and to let the economy fail?
https://nextstrain.org/groups/neherlab/ncov/S.N501?c=gt-S_50...
Now high case counts are spreading from the South East into the rest of the country. We don't know whether we can even stop the growth. During the last lockdown schools remained open; I suspect that it may be necessary to close them in order to just stop the growth. A significant reduction in cases looks impossible.
This strain has probably already spread to tens of other countries. Every country which is just about holding things together, whatever their strategy, is going to struggle with a significantly more transmissible variant of the virus.
Moderna's vaccine was focused on the whole spike protein too. So even though there are crucial mutations in this mutation, both leading vaccine candidates hopefully will still be effective.
They've basically just shut restaurants. That's the only change I can see...
I've posted elsewhere that my cynical view of the UK gov approach is that they are talking tough and doing nothing. So maybe I'm biased?
Perhaps a move transmissible strain will force real action?
It's felt like this with all of the tiers to be honest.
They just don't go far enough and the populace is fed up with taking much heed of the rules too.
The November "lockdown" felt very, very different to March when the roads etc were quiet - and it actually felt like people were taking this seriously.
I'm fed up because so many people flout the rules with no consequences. I suspect that the lack of consequences is intentional. If everyone flours the rules, the economic hit will be smaller and Bojo can claim he did something and its not his fault no one listened. The government have created a situation where the only logical action for normal people is business as usual, that means large excess deaths, and the government has plausible deniability. Whoops.
/RantAndParanoia
Been that way since Barnard's Castle.
The latest decision that says MPs can see their siblings for Christmas Dinner on the 25th, but a Nurse working on the 25th can't see their parent with terminal cancer for dinner on the 26th, will hopefully be ignored.
I can't believe it hasn't made headlines yet...
Only assuming that there's no economic hit to a rampant pandemic spreading death, hospitalisation and illness. Which is a barking mad assumption. It never was "illness vs economy" you either have both good, or you have neither good. They can't be separated.
Depending on long term health effects if covid runs wild you can see as many benefits to average people at the end of it as you did after the black death.
It's not that simple. It's never that simple: i.e. you have simplified to the point of being flat wrong.
> Depending on long term health effects if covid runs wild you can see as many benefits to average people at the end of it as you did after the black death
I don't know what you mean there, for one thing prevalent Long COVID is really not going to be net benefit, for another you should perhaps rethink your economic argument for genocide / decimation. And your assumption about who is "in groups" / "average people" vs out groups. Your whole line of thinking is lacking in both logic and human decency.
And yet that didn't stop you from moralizing.
Sadly the rules are laxer than they should be but the government can’t enforce the rules effectively so are putting in enough grey-area that people can sort of decide for themselves.
Sadly people are very short term focussed and unable to make the most of the situation and instead complain and go about their normal lives with just enough changes that they “feel like they’re doing their bit”.
I love the gym but the move to “keep gyms open” was the best example of people not really getting it and being sad that their toys had been taken away.
The moto in our hose at the moment is “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”
I don't know your situation, but I have lived a very isolated existance for the last 9 months because I am able to. MANY people I know are not in this position.
However, if you look at the graphs the dynamic of virus growth did seem to be significantly changed by the intervention.
Apparently this time around, travel agents and jewellery sellers have added themselves to the list, with a few barbers clearly operating illicitly behind half-drawn shutters.
I was bemused by the very chi-chi local middle class deli near my home insisting they'd be staying open when I enquired on Saturday evening. I mean, sure they sell food, but really - I'm unsure how vital to survival artisanal cheese and pasta is!
Bluntly, without the sincere threat of fines or whatever, no action will be taken. UK-dwellers' sense of entitlement to 'freedoms' seems drastically diluted compared to what I witnessed on the continent a few months back, when I was able.
We deserve everything we get.
- ed, whups - clearly I meant something like 'drastically inflated', not 'diluted'.
In 1000 little steps you are suddenly miles away from a real lockdown. You're basically BAU, but the pub is shut ever other week (unless you buy a scotch egg in which case it is also essential).
I don't care if people are eating gourmet olives. But we need to realise that making excuses for doing nothing is still doing nothing.
Lockdowns have gone on long enough that people are deciding to risk it because they have far more pressing concerns.
Seriously?
We (the West, I'm not from the UK) are losing our freedom at an unimaginable speed even a few years ago and you think freedom is negotiable? I find this appalling how easy we ease into a dictatorship everywhere in Europe.
I tend to communicate quite drily - that's often hard to put across online.
It drives me nuts when people talk about freedom, they have no actual idea what freedom is or takes and their actions undermine it. Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I like with no consequences", but that's what people really want.
Freedom is just a better sounding word than selfishness these days :(
<Steps-down-from-soapbox>
Depends on your definition of freedom. The issue with this kind of freedom is that your freedom encroaches on other people's freedoms, so most societies agreed that we should have less freedom in favor of fairness.
Exactly where the trade-off is to be made is subjective and cannot be derived from facts alone.
We have a lot of freedoms that encroach on other people's freedoms, it's impossibly to make a clear cut on where fair ends and personal freedom begins.
Allowing people the freedom to sell sugar will inevitably lead to more diabetes and earlier death. It tastes good and it's addictive.
Sugar costs a lot of people some of their freedom to live and move. But if we didn't allow selling sugar we would take away the seller's freedom and the freedom to choose from the consumer.
I’m sure there are still better comparisons than drunk driving. If you are under 55, the risk is about the same as dying from a car accident.
ALL our freedoms are attacked: the social media censorship reached crazy levels lately, and let's not talk about democracy given the disgusting spectacle the US has shown this year (my country doesn't fare any better).
When someone is condemned to financial ruin because her shop is not allowed to open, this is not a matter of self entitlement, yes I think these are the beginnings of dictatorship.
As I said I'm not from the UK but as far as I know people in London had more freedom during the WWII aerial bombings.
On the other hand, people are actually dying of Covid. Given the choice I'd take financial ruin over death.
That seems to be the most humane option. Make it illegal to evict people, provide them with a reasonable base income that allows them to lead a dignified life through the lockdown, and then shut everything down for a little while.
Suggesting that the lockdown is synonymous with loss of livelihood is exactly the problem here. Surely the same elected officials that have the power to close everything down also have the power to authorize emergency payments to those impacted by the lockdown.
Well, that's will just establish a beachhead for socialism, and that is reserved for big business.
There are massive costs associated with lockdowns, most of which we can probably only judge accurately once everything is over, and certainly there are second order effects which cost lives also. Such as suicides due to depression amplified by social isolation.
Those costs should be factored in. It's not as simple as a blanket "people are dying so everything is justified".
Truth is we're not taking much time to measure the non-covid, non economic outcomes
Perhaps you'd give up your life, or your child or partner or parent, to save a handful of jobs but that's quite weird in my opinion. Economies can be rebuilt. Dead people can't be brought back.
The flu also kills hundreds of thousands of people, and it does so each and every year. So should we be in permanent lockdown? After all, it's lives versus a handful of jobs.
Prior to the internet you could for the most part visually distinguish between the crazy and the legitimate - the crazy was in crayon on cardboard scraps, full of misspellings. The higher quality crazy was type written on a misaligned sheet of paper, thick with whiteout, still full of misspellings. The legit was professionally edited and published. Not 100% of the time, but a good fraction of the time.
Now we have spell checkers and grammar checkers and blog services like medium that make everything look really really good. That visual heuristic is gone. We need a way to invert our current equilibrium of "it is easy to get bad information out, and hard to get good information out" at least back to how it was: "it is hard to get good information out, but it is even harder to get really bad information out." That isn't censorship.
As for democracy in the US, as a US citizen I can tell you it is on the ropes, mostly due to social media, but it is better off today than it was four years ago just because people are at least starting to think about how to get social media under control.
Every freedom my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents had I have, and more. I'm hard pressed to identify a single one that is under attack.
And you should really familiarize yourself with the actual government response in the UK and US during World War II. The censorship regime was extensive, far more so than anything we've seen in recent memory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship
Furthermore, rationing of food, fuel, and other commodities was extensive. In the UK, this included substantial control of the operating hours, prices, and even the menus of restaurants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdo...
Let's not repeat the mistakes of the first lockdown. If you close down too many places, all that causes is everyone cramming into the same few places still open, causing superspreader events. At one point, LA shut down outdoor farmers markets and many cities including London slashed their public transit schedules, leading to overpacked busses and trains.
On the last point, there was almost always some psycho causing problems in the regular supermarket because it appealed to their sense of drama and got them attention. The extra %15-20 was worth avoiding the risk of an altercation.
The contempt some people have for local shopowners who provide services that are actually worth a premium is shocking, albeit typically british.
Equating people experiencing depression with those who have violent delusions and borderline tendencies creates a worse stigma on seeking treatment than recognizing that dangerous people are just plain dangerous. Sure, we're all people etc, but in an emergency, there are men and women you can trust, and there are ones you can't. A psycho is someone who threatens or harms others for gratification, and it is an epithet they earn. If that's "prejudiced," perhaps we're just from different cultures.
The stakes change when there was a reasonable threat that their actions could put people and their families at risk.
Obviously the etymology of the term comes from psychological illness via a certain famous Hitchhock movie, and that's one reason why the term du jour these days is "Karen" instead.
I'm not sure I do think it's a British thing to hate on local shopowners, if anything - the opposite, what with us being a nation of them, and all.
Sure major Supermarkets have captured most of the spend, but that's just the way things are. Convenience comes in different forms.
The health of the population, in general, is not the primary concern. We just need to stop the hospitals from collapsing.
We live with all manner of sickness and disease every day of the year without trying to eradicate them. Covid is only different from heart disease, lung cancer, and rabies in that it has the potential to swamp us.
Adjusting the throttle for spread might mean jewelry shops being open but sandwich shops being closed. It might just as well involve lockdown for anyone born in an odd month, or with a name ending in a vowel, or ginger hair. The measures are arbitrary and only used as a throttle for the inevitable spread.
This is how I sleep at night. The alternative is the worrying thought that no one in power really knows what they are doing.
* keeping schools open (mostly a success)
* avoiding economic disruption (mixed, tending towards failure)
* avoiding unnecessary deaths and long run health issues (failure)
* Avoiding a second lockdown and the related uncertainty and stress (failure)
* returning to normal life (failure)
* avoiding dangerous mutations (failure)
The UK is an island and could have fairly easily done a NZ/Australia strategy over the summer when seasonality made elimination easy. Jurisdictions that made that choice are doing better on all front.
I live in one such jurisdiction (atlantic canada) and we’ve spent less time in lockdown, had a good economy, and mostly avoided deaths and hospitalizations. Seems a clear winner.
Perhaps a country in the middle of europe couldn’t have done it but the Uk certainly could have.
And no, this pretty clearly shows govts had no long run or even medium run strategy. Europe will be in rolling lockdowns till april or so, because of a premature declaration of victory in the summer.
So once you exclude ireland, you have the channel tunnel, and a handful of ferries to france/belgium. All of which arrive at terminals and where you can do tests or register people for isolation requirements.
Australia and nz aren’t the only successes. You also have taiwan and vietnam. Very close to china, and vietnam has land borders. The biggest difference is these countries tried.
The lockdown in New Zealand had that goal to stop it completely, and achieved it.
Also, it is in general not impossible to eradicate a contagion and suppress it completely. For example, this was done with smallpox, which is about as transmissible SARS-COV2. Smallpox has been eradicated world-wide, for a quite modest price.
I suppose we could close all food shops other than Asda, and restrict Asda to selling only their most basic range (and no sweets, chocolate, fizzy drinks, etc- after all, you can survive without those). On the other hand, that would mean that Asda would be more crowded as people who normally shop in your "chi-chi local middle class deli" now have to go there.
The impression that I get from my country (The Netherlands) is that we are doing a bit better than the UK for reasons that nobody quite understands yet. The best I can guess is that we ultimately make 'bigger' choices comparatively, even though compared to many other EU countries we're not doing particularly well despite being one of the richer ones.
The way I see it, our country is run by technocrats who are faced with something very different and new. Like with projects I've worked on as a programmer, the best solution often involved going way off course. And like with projects I've worked on, this usually didn't happen.
Solutions were conservative, even if something more drastic seemed prudent to almost everyone involved. It's really fucking hard to rewrite some of the core code. So instead we address things further away from that core with all sorts of special cases.
If anything, the pandemic has shown that our current way of doing things isn't quite equipped to deal with big upsets, and considering the future this is something we should probably prioritize dealing with somehow.
Not saying it's not bad, just that very little is actually being done to prevent the spread. Govt care more about keeping people in work.
Overnight covid paitents in the NW went from a peak above that of April in Mid November (i.e. had caught it in October), dropping to 70% of the peak a month later, same in NE+Yorks.
But there were places where one in a hundred was a contagious carrier. Stay at home was the only thing that would worked well. They're still not at that point, plans are still to return schools in T4 and as others testify, most shops ignore the rules. It's shambolic.
They said the same thing about overnight vote counts in Fulton County, GA... turns out it was nothing.
The general public anywhere isn’t ready for trolley problems even if told to optimize for least body counts. Basically the whole free world is in disbelief of the story that there are people on tracks(except TW/AU/NZ?).
No, there is no reason to panic yet. Concern, perhaps, but not panic.
There are a truckload of confounding factors in the middle, including potential "founder effects" (when a variant becomes dominant because it is the first to take hold, and just outruns the others out of larger starting numbers).
There is not yet solid proof of "70% more transmissible" given that all the data there are is the SAGE meeting minutes. We don't know from where the data came from, and how the estimations were made. There are huge uncertainties.
Until the biological analyses are done, one needs to keep their cool. Sadly, that wasn't what the UK government did.
Even if we suppose the chance of it being as bad as suggested is only 50%, we should panic now, rather than waiting until we have solid proof and risk having a public health disaster.
Personally I suspect the UK didn't panic in its announcement and that this situation had been under surveillance for some weeks.
Also the latest document by PHE highlights also the limitations of the current data behind modeling (PCR negative for the S gene, but positive for the others). At this point the good questions haven't been answered yet.
Honestly, that doesn't sound like a real lockdown at all.
An actual sustained lock-down would likely stop the virus's spread, allowing us to finally get back to normal. But nobody wants to claim ownership of the economic fallout, so instead they do these half-assed lock-downs which don't really accomplish much besides making the government look like they're doing something.
Deaths will be visible later on than infections but by now there should be a visible effect if IFR/CFR is different. If there is no visible difference it's possible that R0 increased while IFR remains steady (which is bad enough).
I think extreme lockdown measures could, but they'd almost have to be indefinite, and there's no appetite for that.
Yes. If the new variant is duplicating every week even under medium lock-down measures, as it appears, it will be very difficult to contain it, and impossible with the current set of measures. It would require a very strict lock-down at least. And the vaccinenes would not yet help - they will help later but probably not before late Summer, while the new variant will very likely be all over Europe until March.
Thinking about what we know, what appears very likely, and the conclusions of it, the first half of the year will be far away from normal, even catastrophic.
Is this correct?
UK has a widespread ongoing outbreak and is the first nation to deliver vaccinations at a big scale.
Why would vaccination increase the likelihood of new mutations, or mutations surviving better?
The only way I can see that reasoning working is that the mutation was somehow vaccine resistant but not resistant to the immune reaction we get after being sick with the comon corona, but it is not obvious to me that it would work that way, I would assume the opposite.
Our immune systems are general enough to face a wide variety of viruses, infections and strains.
When one is vaccinated, it gets prepared for that particular strain of a particular virus. The cost is that it could become more vulnerable to other infections... it's the cost/benefit of specialization vs generalization. Reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14970928/
The reason is that the immune system is highly optimized and it is optimized to be flexible enough to save enough individuals for the next generation. It is not optimized to save each and every individual against all possible infections. That is unnecessary, as far as evolution is concerned.
Having said that, vaccines generally don't weaken individuals to a slightly different variant of the same virus. It should rather strengthen it. The immune system expects the virus to mutate so it prepares for the mutations to an extent. In fact, a category of vaccines called live-attenuated vaccines are basically weakened strains of the same virus (these can sometimes mutate into dangerous strains, eg. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/polio-vaccination..., but that's a different discussion).
Problem is that there is no alternative. You either vaccinate or let it run through your population. With IFR of 0.5-1% that is really hard choice to make.
I'm getting the sense that there's little public appetite for waiting another 6-9 months for a new vaccine. This might change as more people get the virus, but there's a good chance 10-15% of Americans have already had or currently have the virus, so if that didn't scare people already, I'm not sure if another month of full ICUs will.
Another problem is that CDC and other agencies at first were openly lying and trying to downplay the virus or say how masks were not effective. This leads to people not trusting what they say because everyone can remember how they were against masks and now are in favor of masks. Then you add in politicians with mixed messages and you get highly doubtful public.
IFR is around 1% in the western world. That is incredibly high for something that could become as seasonal as flu.
Yes, we are getting into it but something like 300K first jabs for a two jab vacc in two weeks is not going to set the world on fire. The logistics behind delivering the jab are absolutely breathtaking.
Here in the UK we are rich and have the science etc. We are a small, comparatively, densely populated place. We have a country funded health service and a fairly well funded military with experience and gear and man power. I think the UK represents one of the best possible case studies for mass vaccination.
60M people at 300K per week is 200 weeks or nearly four years - this is a very artificial example and only an illustration. To get 60M people jabbed, twice, in a few months is going to need a few resources!
> The first Variant Under Investigation in December 2020 (VUI – 202012/01), also known as lineage B.1.1.7, is a variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The variant was first detected in the United Kingdom in October 2020 from a sample taken the previous month, and it quickly began to spread by mid-December. It is correlated with a significant increase in the rate of COVID-19 infection in England; this increase is thought to be at least partly because of mutation N501Y inside the spike glycoprotein's receptor-binding domain, which is needed for binding to ACE2 in human cells.
Correlation does not equal causation. Most of the northern hemisphere is experiencing a significant increase in cases, i.e., a second wave. It has not yet been established whether this variant exhibits a unique pathogenesis.
The big deal to me is that this variant is muscling out others in sequencing (+ PCR tests which by coincidence can tell the difference between this variant and the previously dominant ones), despite there being a high prevalence.
And while the details are sparse, the NERVTAG minutes refer to evidence showing that the patients infected by the new variant have higher viral loads.
[1] https://www.cogconsortium.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Repo...
Yeah but if somebody is shot and you are found with a smoking gun right around the corner, you need to have a pretty good, and also testable explanation.
https://www.cogconsortium.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Repo...
I'm not saying that the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine is bad. This is however very unwise. It would definitely erode trust in vaccines if the Oxford/Astrazeneca were to have significant side effects. Which would erode trust in science in the long term.
This variant does not have any genetic differences in the spike protein targeted by the vaccines. It is unlikely the vaccines will be differently effective.
https://virological.org/t/preliminary-genomic-characterisati...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/21/supercharged-cov...
Vaccines target subsequences of amino acids on proteins which both variants most likely have.
Mark my words that this a non story/media sensationalism and will be out of the news in a few weeks.
But most of the population will be immune, so outbreaks will be limited and spread slowly. Ideally that immunity will come via vaccination instead of infection. And yes, it remains possible that if it mutates as rapidly as influenza, that we'll need a yearly "covid shot" to plug the gap.
- Is it more infectious or just bypasses current immunities?
- Will the vaccines basically be voided by this?
- Is it less lethal? Could it create more general immunity in communities without killing?
- Has is spread yet? I've read the UK gov knew about this in october... seems like it's probably everywhere by now
I'm not sure how they can no that without restarting extensive trials, but as a sibling commenter points out, viruses mutate constantly so I guess dealing with variants is pretty common when it comes to vaccination.
EDIT: Actually, sounds like a couple of the mutations are in the spike protein and there is some evidence of reduced antibody effectiveness against the mutated version.
The deletion seems to reduce antibody neutralization, but:
- In the preprint where this was shown, only 4 convalescent sera were tested;
- The same 4 sera had large variation in neutralization activity per se;
- There is no investigation on potential impaired T cell reactivity (cellular immunity): FTR, the "mink mutation", although it exhibited slightly lower antibody neutralization, did not change the reaction of T cells to it.
It has been around since September - if vaccines were voided it would have shown up in trials. It seems the human immune system is pretty smart and manufactures many different antibodies against many different sites on the spike protein. So even if some parts of the spike protein mutate, you still have antibodies that will do the job.
- Is it less lethal? Could it create more general immunity in communities without killing?
It might be - it carries one mutation (a deletion) on a part of the genome that helps it evade the host immune system - but more data is needed. If it was less lethal that is a mechanism that can help it spread - people are asymptomatic for longer, or feel better so are out and about instead of in their bed. But although I have seen rumours on this there's nothing definite and no data.
- Has is spread yet? I've read the UK gov knew about this in october...
It has been detected in Denmark as well. The UK - especially obviously London where it is prevalent - is highly globally connected. This variant will be everywhere in the world now in small amounts and if it does spread better it is just a matter of time. The UK does a LOT of genome sequencing compares to most countries so it is well equipped to detect the emergence of new strains and their spread.
The variant didn't reach a significant proportion of infections until November. Evaluation of the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine was done in July and August. We don't have data to understand how effective the Pfizer vaccine is against this variant yet.
I was really shocked to read German Minister statements saying the vacine is still effective for this variant. Sure theoretical the spike is majority unchanged but there is no evidence or data for a government official to make such an absolute statement.
[0] https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/20/covid-vaccines-still-effectiv...
(Of course I can't judge the biology and if that actually accurately represented the expert opinion behind it, but to me it communicated clearly enough that this isn't a certain claim, but reflecting a current snapshot of something that's actively looked at)
That said, what I've seen immunologists saying is that they expect the vaccine to still work well, because they wouldn't expect months of mutations to add up to the variant escaping the vaccine.
Basically, the UK is just better set up to detect variants like this than a lot of other countries. The other possibility is that even if this variant hasn't spread yet, there are other variants out there with similar properties that just haven't been detected due to the lack of widespread RNA sequencing. South Africa apparently has one that's similar but unrelated.
If this chart is true EU countries announcing the closing borders the last couple of days is waaay to late to prevent the spread of the new strain in Europe.
Because of that, I think this move may be overcautious, but I don’t see how it can be stupid or counterproductive.
It's probably not a coincidence that this strain was first detected as spreading right next to the Dover crossing.
Yesterday Australia had 15 community acquired cases (yes, 15 in total, with a further 11 from international travel in hotel quarantine) in the country and a quarter of sydney is in lockdown due to it, the virus variant is an American strain.
The final immune response will shut down the virus ability to replicate freely due to recognition; selective pressure to avoid immune response is unlikely due to 1) the continually lowering viral load and 2) the very high number of non-selective antibodies produced that recognise a large number of viral epitopes.
"everyone is going to hate me, quick think of something to blame.".... Eureka .... "There's a new virus strain, totally unforeseeable, don't blame me for the lock downs"
Just sayin'
Imagine for a moment that the current case number was entirely predictable. i.e. it is due to Boris ignoring scientific advice, believing he knows better. So the need to close for christmas is a result of not locking down sooner and harder. Now due to that failure to sell the hard truth, people wont be able to meet over christmas and he wants to find a way of shifting the blame.
This was probably made worse by politicians because it's their natural instinct, but you'll see regular people trying to bargain like this too. "OK I know it's unsafe to do X, but I really wanted to, and so was extra careful to use hand sanitiser today".
The virus doesn't understand your proposed bargain, it's just (very complicated) chemistry, it is no more able to agree to a "deal" where you can spend Xmas opening presents with the extended family without getting COVID-19 so long as you promise not to stay overnight than a falling rock is able to spare your life because you prayed to Jesus.
One small piece of good news is that to a limited extent, and for some privileged people, technology made it possible to ignore these bad policies and enjoy much of the safety offered by sane policies despite living somewhere that had chosen to ignore them.
Anyway, the idea (which I'm not agreeing with) isn't that Boris knew the old plan (Xmas week doesn't need rules) wouldn't work, and concocted this story to cover for the fact that he'd need to U-turn rather than just never issuing the obviously bad policy, nor that this new strain is the only reason it's out of control and the old policy wouldn't work. Instead the idea is Boris was disappointed to hear that scientists (who've said all along that couldn't work) are right and it's going to drown the NHS in patients, likely resulting in staggering death tolls around New Year - and once he understood that he wanted an excuse to U-turn for which a new strain provides a convenient excuse.
Boris always looks like a fool. It's a big part of how he got elected. British people think he's a charming buffoon. Under current plans he has several years for them to forget he killed their parents or grandparents before they get the chance to kick him out directly, although it's the nature of Tory party politics that Boris isn't likely to survive that long.