The UK COVID variant

Necro

Aegir wrote: »

You don’t say

Mod:

What's your point exactly? Get back on topic

Mr.Wemmick

IAMAMORON wrote: »

So I will reiterate the question. Who is going to challenge him at this point?

Exactly. And to think who would actually want the mess he has created? Where would you even begin?

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

He's like teflon - at this stage he should be able to see the writing on the wall. There was a poll by YouGov in the last day or so that had 33% of people thinking that the UK government in handling the pandemic very or somewhat well.

The new variant is spreading more rapidly because people in the UK aren't social distancing, aren't wearing masks and schools are only enforcing masks in communal areas and not actually in classrooms where schools now have to close doors and windows because it is so cold.

I have never paid much heed to YouGov - run by two ex-tories. S. Shakespeare has even admitted, in the past, of guiding people's answers in polls. The scary thing is that everything to come out of the UK media/ polls is now heavily influenced by tory methodology. Johnson and Cummings worked hard this year to tighten the screws so there is less freedom to report anything fully, minimising accountability. Dangerous times. The tories really run the show. Starmer comes across as nothing more than a weak tory side-kick.

Some schools and areas are doing better than others re: covid management. In my area mask wearing is consistently good and everyone sanitises in shops/supermarkets. Schools too. Secondary schools have less consistency, as you've said, but larger 6th form colleges have spilt timetables with on-line classes mixed with college days so they can control numbers and improve safety.

igCorcaigh

Good news

https://twitter.com/profvrr/status/1341478035208335360

igCorcaigh

They need to share the evidence

https://twitter.com/New_Narrative/status/1341484984792735750

igCorcaigh

igCorcaigh wrote: »

They need to share the evidence

https://twitter.com/New_Narrative/status/1341484984792735750

Jesus. That’s hardly the definitive 70% that Johnson and Hancock were coming out with to justify their new restrictions to their Daily Mail and Telegraph supporters

beggars_bush

2800 trucks stuck in Kent now

igCorcaigh

igCorcaigh wrote: »

They need to share the evidence

https://twitter.com/New_Narrative/status/1341484984792735750

What would you like to be shared. There is plenty out there.

igCorcaigh

Aegir wrote: »

What would you like to be shared. There is plenty out there.

Their testing and genomic data I guess. Or whatever has them convinced of the increased transmissibility.
There seems to be some scepticism about their claims.

igCorcaigh

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Their testing and genomic data I guess. Or whatever has them convinced of the increased transmissibility.
There seems to be some scepticism about their claims.

This is from two days ago

https://www.newstalk.com/news/explainer-what-is-the-new-strain-of-covid-19-1125181

It sounds as though they are sharing their data, they just don’t have much as yet.

Here’s another that gives a bit more info. https://www.thejournal.ie/covi-19-uk-variant-5308198-Dec2020/

WoollyRedHat

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Good news

https://twitter.com/profvrr/status/1341478035208335360

Sorry what does that mean?

igCorcaigh

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Sorry what does that mean?

More evidence that the vaccine is efficient against the UK variant.

CIARAN_BOYLE

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Sorry what does that mean?

I think it means that 'old' covid 19 antibodies work on the new variant. This would mean that existing vaccines would provoke an immune response that would be appropriate to the new variant.

SortingYouOut

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Sorry what does that mean?

monoclonals man.. duh

WoollyRedHat

SortingYouOut wrote: »

monoclonals man.. duh

Sorry I lost my monocle earlier so finding it difficult.

WoollyRedHat

Would be interesting to know data around hospitalisations of people with new strain.

igCorcaigh

SortingYouOut wrote: »

monoclonals man.. duh

Actually, interestingly enough, isn't there some speculation that the new variant came from someone receiving convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatment?

WoollyRedHat

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Actually, interestingly enough, isn't there some speculation that the new variant came from someone receiving convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatment?

Yeah read that too, there was an immunocompromised patient who had chronic illness, and theory goes that the treatment and long incubation time provided virus with a living laboratory to evolve. Presume this has been previously identified with other viruses? Patient subsequently died sadly.

igCorcaigh

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Yeah read that too, there was an immunocompromised patient who had chronic illness, and theory goes that the treatment and long incubation time provided virus with a living laboratory to evolve. Presume this has been previously identified with other viruses? Patient subsequently died sadly.

Oh

I don't know enough to understand how that environment could create a selective pressure for this variant.

rebel girl 15

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Need someone like CNN in America that say it like it is and don't pander to him

Hahaha. Brilliant.

WoollyRedHat

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Oh

I don't know enough to understand how that environment could create a selective pressure for this variant.

Me either, maybe because they couldn't fight off infection it had more time to adapt from the treatment?

igCorcaigh

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Me either, maybe because they couldn't fight off infection it had more time to adapt from the treatment?

If the presence of the antibody treatment was the selective factor, does that not imply that the selected variant was then resistant to those antibodies?
But we have been reassured that the antibodies produced by the vaccine are still effective.

It's so complex, I just don't know.

speckle

SlowBlowin wrote: »

The biggest surprise for me in that article is that a good percentage of those tested had both the wild variant AND the new strain.

That was interesting and the question it poses of did the health controls/ restrictions enable the more serious strain gain competitive advantage rather than the other?

You might like this then..an epidemiological paper on those first three people from wuhan who had both.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30273-5/fulltext

stephenjmcd

Thread on some data made available however still no definite answer and not enough evidence

https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1341506664428613640?s=19

"The B 1.1.7 lineage (Δ69/70 +501Y) was associated with higher viral load. Though, viral load is also significantly different between places (lower in London), irrespective of viral lineage. Age is not available at this stage to the investigators."

"The 'UK lineage' (B 1.1.7) might be associated to higher viral load. Sampling biases (e.g. earlier sampling in the infection for 'UK variants') or age (e.g. 'UK variants' might be at this stage circulating in on average younger people) feel like equally plausible explanations."

WoollyRedHat

igCorcaigh wrote: »

If the presence of the antibody treatment was the selective factor, does that not imply that the selected variant was then resistant to those antibodies?
But we have been reassured that the antibodies produced by the vaccine are still effective.

It's so complex, I just don't know.

Yeah that's a good point, don't really know and don't want to be engaging in speculation. Would be interesting to hear explanation though, I would hope this will be explained by those in the know.

caveat emptor

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Thread on some data made available however still no definite answer and not enough evidence


"The B 1.1.7 lineage (Δ69/70 +501Y) was associated with higher viral load. Though, viral load is also significantly different between places (lower in London), irrespective of viral lineage. Age is not available at this stage to the investigators."

"The 'UK lineage' (B 1.1.7) might be associated to higher viral load. Sampling biases (e.g. earlier sampling in the infection for 'UK variants') or age (e.g. 'UK variants' might be at this stage circulating in on average younger people) feel like equally plausible explanations."

Thanks for sharing. Wonder why they won't release the info about the age? They clearly have it. I suppose they don't want to cause undue panic. They are getting the testing set up for school returns. I'd imagine the absentee rate would be much higher in Jan if people didn't have confidence that the kids still had low propensity to catch and spread.

ShineOn7

Is anyone who's been on the more cautious side worried about any packages you ordered from the UK before this news happened?

I'm due 3 packages over the few days to 2 weeks

Just give them an extra wipe down?

stephenjmcd

caveat emptor wrote: »

Thanks for sharing. Wonder why they won't release the info about the age? They clearly have it. I suppose they don't want to cause undue panic. They are getting the testing set up for school returns. I'd imagine the absentee rate would be much higher in Jan if people didn't have confidence that the kids still had low propensity to catch and spread.

Yeah I was wondering myself about that as to why they haven't shared that. Just seemed a bit odd.

The viral load in the different areas is also interesting.

Still not able to come to a decent summary either way at the moment unfortunately.

caveat emptor

igCorcaigh wrote: »

If the presence of the antibody treatment was the selective factor, does that not imply that the selected variant was then resistant to those antibodies?
But we have been reassured that the antibodies produced by the vaccine are still effective.

It's so complex, I just don't know.

The evidence on this point stems from a paper on an immunocompromised individual who had a long infection and ultimately died. The were given convalescent plasma (antibodies) They did genomic sequencing on this person over a period of ~165 days and found the virus had mutated 16 times in the person.

On those diagrams showing the lineage it shows a long narrow branch. i.e it would be very strange to see such a different isolated lineage. The branch on this change is similar which adds to the theory. Essentially treatment with antibodies has been showed to lead to antibody escape.

Really hope it's a coincidence that the specific mutation occurred in the one country that has rolled out the vaccine the most.

Antibodies are becoming a frontline therapy for SARS-CoV-2, but the risk of viral evolutionary escape remains unclear. Here we map how all mutations to SARS-CoV-2’s receptor-binding domain (RBD) affect binding by the antibodies in Regeneron’s REGN-COV2 cocktail and Eli Lilly’s LY-CoV016. These complete maps uncover a single amino-acid mutation that fully escapes the REGN-COV2 cocktail, which consists of two antibodies targeting distinct structural epitopes. The maps also identify viral mutations that are selected in a persistently infected patient treated with REGN-COV2, as well as in lab viral escape selections. Finally, the maps reveal that mutations escaping each individual antibody are already present in circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains. Overall, these complete escape maps enable immediate interpretation of the consequences of mutations observed during viral surveillance.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.30.405472v1.full.pdf

speckle

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Yeah that's a good point, don't really know and don't want to be engaging in speculation. Would be interesting to hear explanation though, I would hope this will be explained by those in the know.

This might help regarding thst particular case

https://www.cogconsortium.uk/news_item/persistent-sars-cov-2-infection-and-viral-evolution-tracked-in-an-immunocompromised-patient/

And just because I like this cartoon of very basic primer on mutations 2minutes in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9tTi-CDjDU

rebel girl 15

caveat emptor wrote: »

Thanks for sharing. Wonder why they won't release the info about the age? They clearly have it. I suppose they don't want to cause undue panic. They are getting the testing set up for school returns. I'd imagine the absentee rate would be much higher in Jan if people didn't have confidence that the kids still had low propensity to catch and spread.

My school was open Monday after going into tier 4 - one third of the students were absent, about 50 isolating and 150 who didn't come in.

I'd be sceptical about the testing regime getting properly off the ground - they have had to withdraw the initial guidance that was sent to headteachers about it as it was incorrect in saying that an adult would have to do the test when in fact these are supposed to be self administered tests. There is a briefing tomorrow for headteachers, apparently a repeat of the one from Friday.

It is an opt in scheme, and parents have to give signed consent for students to be allowed to be tested.