Read on Twitter
The UK says it has detected a more infectious, faster-moving viral mutation.
So why doesn’t Canada have a travel ban on the UK starting RIGHT NOW while this is investigated, @JustinTrudeau? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/19/what-is-the-new-covid-strain-and-will-vaccines-work-against-it
So why doesn’t Canada have a travel ban on the UK starting RIGHT NOW while this is investigated, @JustinTrudeau? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/19/what-is-the-new-covid-strain-and-will-vaccines-work-against-it
Even Scotland has closed itself off from the rest of Britain. Yet Canada has not. This is frankly negligent.
Technical: this is a two AA deletion in the spike protein, correlated with some (likely not all) antibody escape. I am told by a UK colleague that this is appearing in routine genetic surveillance in England and elsewhere in the UK. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.05.20241927v1
The nightmare scenario (NOT presently true) is that because all leading vaccines target the spike protein, mutations in that antigen could diminish protection. NO GAMBLES should be taken pending that research.
It could be that this mutated virus already landed in Canada, in which case travel restrictions would do little or nothing.
But we don’t know because Canada unlike the UK doesn’t do genetic surveillance—another failure of our country. So it’s best to act precautionarily.
But we don’t know because Canada unlike the UK doesn’t do genetic surveillance—another failure of our country. So it’s best to act precautionarily.
To be clear, the virus mutates ALL THE TIME and we hardly notice. But the British believe this particular one is a “gain of function” mutation (ie, it’s worse than before) with objective reason, and that does not happen every day.
More details from my friend and colleague Prof @martinmckee here.
The summary: We do have serious reason to worry, but do not yet know if it is correct to worry. In that paradigm, when our public health capacity is already overwhelmed, a precautionary approach is best. https://twitter.com/martinmckee/status/1340361180053970944
The summary: We do have serious reason to worry, but do not yet know if it is correct to worry. In that paradigm, when our public health capacity is already overwhelmed, a precautionary approach is best. https://twitter.com/martinmckee/status/1340361180053970944
There is more science and hypothesis to this than I am showing (but see great thread 
).
In the meantime, while hypotheses are being tested, the lawyer in me calls out for the precautionary principle. Banning UK travel is a stopgap, and a rotten one, but prudent for now. https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1340409968818671616
). In the meantime, while hypotheses are being tested, the lawyer in me calls out for the precautionary principle. Banning UK travel is a stopgap, and a rotten one, but prudent for now. https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1340409968818671616
