Read on Twitter
A little public service: the main arguments from Germany’s chief virologist @c_drosten, on the new UK #mutation – from this interview in @dlf this morning. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/coronavirus-mutation-in-grossbritannien-virologe-drosten.694.de.html?dram:article_id=489655
The data was just not there yet to come to firm conclusions, the UK scientists had said as much. What was known so far did not worry him. ( @JohnSpringford will be proud that I am doing this in reported speech, he taught me.)
The cause-effect point that Whitty made, too: was that #virus more transmittable or was it spread by chance in regions or by people with high transmission rates? Unclear whether the virus was at fault.
The 70% figure: he was very skeptical, speculated that scientists, encouraged to give an answer, presented that as their best guesstimate. Media and politicians then jumped on it.
To really know whether it was more transmittable, one would need to know infection pairs, how fast the transmission was. After all we knew about the #virus, he said he’d be surprised if that parameter changed so drastically.
European #travelbans were a … careful policy, ‘let’s call it that’ (implying that it was an over-reaction, I think – which is remarkable as he is usually a very careful advisor).
There were a couple of things we knew about this #virus that were a bit worrying. But not this mutation, which was about binding the virus to the receptor. That bind was stronger in the mutation, but that was not only to the virus’ advantage.
The #mutation had been active in England since end-Sept, in Belgium, Netherlands, even Australia. No effect on transmission overall. The mutation was almost certainly in #Germany already.
On the political dimension of this: #travelban politically understandable, ‘there is quite a bit of alarm coming from the UK in the way it is being communicated’ (implying politcisation on the UK's part, I think).
