Yes.
And he's just guessing at this point because quite literally there has been no data published at all to allow anyone to make any sort of conclusion either way.
Can't make any sort of conclusion on 4 lines in a summary document with 0 supporting data at all.
can't make any sort of conclusion on 4 lines in a summary document with 0 supporting data at all.
I am Mystified by the claim of 70% higher transmissibility.
In what units do you even measure the transmissibility? I guess I can figure out what it means but what does it mean if the transmissibility in a virus changes by 70%? It's a total mystery what they are talking about.
How could it be measured? Whatever transmissibility means. The best measure of rate of spread is given by Tim Spector and his ZOE symptom checking phone application which does not depend on chemicals or labs, it merely uses 20 symptoms in a self-assessment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK4X4ncXuHQ
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time
So it looks like the 2nd wave is not a myth, we really are getting > 20,000++ cases a day now in a major uptick, in London and esp. Wales. It's a surge R ~ 1.3.Perhaps that's what they mean by transmissibility.
I think they plucked the 70% figure out of thin air to scare us.
How could it be measured? Whatever transmissibility means. The best measure of rate of spread is given by Tim Spector and his ZOE symptom checking phone application which does not depend on chemicals or labs, it merely uses 20 symptoms in a self-assessment.
"Growth rate from genomic data: which suggest a growth rate of VUI-202012/01 that
that is 71% (95%CI: 67%-75%) higher than other variants.
o Studies of correlation between R-values and detection of the variant: which
suggest an absolute increase in the R-value of between 0.39 to 0.93.
o PCR ct values: which suggest a decrease of ct value of around 2 associated with
the new variant.
o Viral load inferred from number of unique genome reads: which suggests 0.5
increase in median log10 inferred viral load in Y501 versus N501."
So no, not quite plucked out of thin air *but* thats a summary page without the data itself being released. Its impossible to confirm or debunk anything until data is released (although lots of people are trying and are literally just guessing based on no data).
FWIW to me it likely there's some selective advantage - South African preprint yesterday on a new strain there (501.V2) had some identical mutations in the same place and it also seems to potentially increase spread.
So 2 geographically separate lineages evolve the same mutation. That IS suggestive of convergent evolution and a selective advantage.
Again though, how much (if any) we cant say without actual data.
The main bugbear throughout all of this is failing to release data to the public to allow claims to be scrutinised. If the claim is true (and it might be), showing the data would likely increase public trust.
Also remember the UK is more likely than almost anywhere to detect a new, changed variant purely because we sequence more genomes than almost anywhere else and have potentially the best genomic surveillance programme in the world.
So it looks like the 2nd wave is not a myth, we really are getting > 20,000++ cases a day now in a major uptick, in London and esp. Wales. It's a surge R ~ 1.3.Perhaps that's what they mean by transmissibility.
I wonder what would have happened on a typical year around this time if the general public had to report symptoms of headaches, colds, influenza and so on. Would we call that a wave? And, if so, a wave of what? Would it be something that anyone would bother working out R values for? No, of course not. For these are mostly not 'cases' but ordinary experiences for most people.
Regarding mass PCR testing, positive results are called 'cases'. Putting aside the fact the most of these are false anyway, is this now showing a wave or an upturn? Picking up dead virus fragments could indicate that the virus has passed by and been dealt with. We might even view an increase in these 'cases', apart from the serious hospitalisations, as a good sign.
Do these represent a wave in any shape or form? We might call it a wave, but it is not a wave in the same sense as the pandemic. That was a wave due to high fatality and hospitalisation. That was, quite rightly, worrying. This is largely not worrying at all - hence the effort to scaremonger.
I think they plucked the 70% figure out of thin air to scare us.
We are going through thick and thin here - one characterising their grey matter and the other characterising air.
Using the same reasoning as before, if there is greater transmittability, it would be a 'good thing' - as long as the elderly and vulnerable are protected. It would accelerate the passing of the virus and its offspring through the largely unaffected population.
I think they plucked the 70% figure out of thin air to scare us.
And who is "they"? The usual culprit:
The man has never explained, let alone apologised or tried to correct, his myriad errors going back years. This is the guy who more than anyone else, was responsible for the mass slaughter of herds of cattle and untold misery to farmers:
It is astonishing that anyone like this should be serving on any scientific advisory committee.
Why not get Bernard Madoff to advise the Bank of England on ethics? Make Hancock governor and maybe that will happen.
