Agreed - if there is even a possibility that the variant can be more contagious, better to get that hypothesis out, apply the precautionary principle for policy measures, and let research have at it.
There are some weird anomalies in the information that the UK has made available. It is rampaging in some areas, jumped from 28% of London cases to 62%, East 23-59 in one month. But in Yorkshire from 8% to 5%, Southwest 28% to 27%. Similarly, European countries that have detected aren’t seeing it emerge as a predominant variant. I have absolutely no insight as to what the factors might be, but that variant might actually have some advantage more selected for in the London area.
Probably has something to do with the number of “celebrities” and reality"stars" flaunting regulations and advice.
Lets have a birthday party,lets go abroad and not self isolate etc
I think it’s worth reflecting that this mutation, understanding its genetic profile, and tracking its prevalence within positive cases of coronavirus was only possible due to the world-leading research facilities in the UK and a dose of fortune.
It does make you wonder exactly what other mutations have not been identified and/or not been subject to such a level of expert analysis elsewhere in the world. I really don’t think that the cynicism is justified when you consider precisely which bodies of experts are sounding the cautionary alarm.
I assume I might have been placed into that category. I’ll repeat myself to clarify my thoughts. This is a government that knew cases were rising in Kent and that they were possibly related to a new strain. They did nothing until now.
the likelihood of mutation has been well known for months. You would think that a government that is “following the science” would be all over that. Apparently not.
To me they have politically used this information to reverse a decision on the Christmas relaxation of restrictions. I’d also argue that you didn’t need a new variant to see that relaxing rules over Christmas was probably a daft idea in the first place. Even Chris Whitty was rather coy about it.
With anything related to this government these days, my default position to anything they say is scepticism. But at the same time, given what they are suggesting is so serious, I will wait patiently for scientists around the world not associated with this government to provide their opinions. It’s really that simple for me.
I think you’ve conflated two things together here. The government knew that there was a mutation a few weeks ago but they didn’t know how that may have differed from the original coronavirus or, indeed, other known mutations.
It was only later, following expert analysis combined with the fortunate way in which the mutation interacted with the PCR tests, that the experts got a better understanding of it and, critically, were able to track its R rate distinguished from that of the original and other main mutation identified in May.
It took time to go from “there’s another mutation” to “this is what we think it may do”. As one expert put it, if they were to hold press conferences every time they discovered a new mutation they’d be never-ending.
Well, already many are providing their opinions without even having looked at the data. I’m not sure who I’d trust more. The world leading experts who’ve been analysing this for a few weeks or those from other countries who haven’t. Tough one.
Are all scientists “associated” with the government of the country in which they work or just those in the UK (except those who doubt the information relayed by the government, of course)? I’d hope that most scientists have a bit more integrity than you’re suggesting, particularly when they are apparently held in high regard internationally.
I think they should have imposed tougher lockdown measures as @Arminius alluded to, particularly if they had any concerns about a mutation being more infectious. But it really does seem like those details are relatively new. They’ve seemingly only got two data points for its prevalence across the different regions in the UK. The second one is only from a few days ago. That was probably the first indication that they had of whether (and where) cases may have been rising and doing so at a greater rate than previously identified strains.
They’ve taken responsible action upon that discovery even though the dataset is still relatively small and more analysis is needed. They’ve made it clear that there are particular concerns about this mutation’s potential contagiousness and have done so within a few days of this possibility being revealed.
Johnson should never have even mentioned the 70% figure (even saying upto). The reason why can be highlighted by the man who calculated it.
You can watch the video here from 2:36 to 2:45 mins. This video is from 4 days ago
He starts his presentation essentially saying that it does not account for founder effects, which he believes could be quite significant.
He then goes on to tell a story about how he was willing to bet a variant from Spain to become the most prevalent in November (clean sweep). But his model got it wrong. So a precautionary tale. Trends you see early on dont always pan out. The reason - Founder effects (travel).
He then shows his estimation with new variant. Stating it is too early to tell. We can tell its growing quickly. That the data is overly noisy, and very dispersed and the model does not account for it.
Personally I think they’re partly using it as an excuse. Cases have been rising for a few weeks and only now they act having been pushed by the potential that exists now.
I’ve just seen a Sky news interview with matt hancock and he was saying that they were presented with the new evidence last Friday, but they sat on increasing case numbers for weeks.
In my mind they’re dealing of this whole thing has been backwards. They only act when it’s too late. The virus has constantly been 2 steps ahead of them
But they did not know that the rising numbers (its really a third wave now, the second one had started to recede) may have been (partly) attributable to this particular mutation until more recently. It could just as easily have been attributable (and I believe it partly is) to the inadequate and late lockdown measures the government put in place again.
To this point, I just now read that the UK sequences 10% of all positive test results - that is actually pretty staggering. I don’t think there is a more comprehensive genetic picture of the virus in any other country, though I don’t actually know what the percentage is for other European countries. Canada cannot actually provide that percentage, not sure the US can either.
Seventeen mutations as compared to its nearest known ancestor…
edit: NZ sequences every positive, but that is nothing like the scale of the UK data.
Iceland. Iceland is unique as far as I know. I thought it was anyway. In Norway we have been led to believe that Iceland have given the world unprecedented data in combating the virus.
No, or at least I don’t think so. What you have in the UK I would describe as a continuation of the 2nd wave that is probably related to XMas shopping and a new dynamic due to behaviour. (The downturn was due to restrictions however it never got to a low enough level for a 3rd wave to be announced).
Looking at the number of deaths the 2nd wave in europe is ongoing and needs to be curbed.
Yes, you could be right that it’s due to inadequate lockdown measures and them being imposed too late and lifted too early. It could also be partly attributed to the new mutation.
Really I was just looking at its shape though. This is definitely the third swell for the UK.
One of the infectious experts in Singapore has mentioned very early on that the virus mutation will become more and more infectious but less deadly. Because the virus will learn that in order for them to be transmitted wider and faster is to keep the host alive, so more infected one will not die but the virus will become strains that infect more and faster.
And also, I am not sure why there will still be discussions on the effectiveness of masks. Masks and masks alone was never meant to be sole defence. Masks, Hygiene, social distancing, trace and contain are the multi faceted defence and you cannot do one without the other and expect to have a high level of defence. And if we have the mentality that says, since we are already in crowds, whats the point of wearing masks, then we are so terribly wrong. All the more you should wear masks because if you have to be in places where its so crowded, then wearing a mask would increase a small level of defence which is better than none. We are almost one year into the widespread Pandemic and there is no reason for anyone to be arguing about this now. We just have to do anything and everything to protect yourself and family. Even something that can raise 10% of your defence is better than none.
Looks like here in Ireland we’ll be going back into a level 5 lockdown from the 26th.We opened up, with level 3 restrictions almost 3 weeks ago after a 6 week lockdown had brought the numbers down to amongst the best in Europe per capita but have found our infection rate increase from 250 to 750 per day in that time.
It doesn’t matter whether its a or b does it? They’ve acted late again (we agree here) and along comes a variant as a convenient excuse to do another u turn. It could be more infectious it might not be. But thankfully the scence says it could be.
In some ways they are lucky. Had there not been any concern about increased transmission they probably would have carried on blindly.
