Read on Twitter
I’ve written a lot in the last two weeks about #B117 and the uncertainty surrounding its exact effects.
So let me talk about something that we can be pretty certain about: what we should be doing.
New story is here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/viral-mutations-may-cause-another-very-very-bad-covid-19-wave-scientists-warn
Quick thread to come.
So let me talk about something that we can be pretty certain about: what we should be doing.
New story is here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/viral-mutations-may-cause-another-very-very-bad-covid-19-wave-scientists-warn
Quick thread to come.
First: How good is the evidence that #B117 is more transmissible? It’s still far from a slam dunk. But as @AdamJKucharski told me: “We're relying on multiple streams of imperfect evidence, but pretty much all that evidence is pointing in the same direction now.”
At this point we probably have to look to countries other than the UK for confirmation that #B117 is more transmissible.
“The dynamics and the spread of this strain internationally is probably going to be the strongest evidence we will have”, @EvolveDotZoo told me.
“The dynamics and the spread of this strain internationally is probably going to be the strongest evidence we will have”, @EvolveDotZoo told me.
Of course when we see it spread in other countries as rapidly as in the UK, it’s also pretty late to do anything. This is basically a re-run of early 2020 and that’s why many scientists (and science journalists) feel a sense of déjà vu.
So the first thing we should have learnt from 2020 is that we need to act now, while the data is still uncertain. @firefoxx66 put it well: “I really hope that this time, we can recognize that this is our early alarm bell, and this is our chance to get ahead of this variant.”
The concern is clear, it’s that #B117 will “become the dominant global variant with its higher transmission and it will drive another very, very bad wave”, as @JeremyFarrar told me.
So what is it we should be doing to keep #B117 from spreading or to prepare for it? Well, what we should have been doing all along: pushing infections down to very low levels.
I won’t go through the general arguments here for suppressing #SARSCoV2. You can read this letter by @ViolaPriesemann and others for instance: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32625-8/fulltext
Point is: Arguments for the strategy have only increased.
Curbing the spread of a more transmissible variant will be difficult even with strict measures layered on top of each other. Test, trace and isolate will be an important component and it breaks down at high case counts.
Curbing the spread of a more transmissible variant will be difficult even with strict measures layered on top of each other. Test, trace and isolate will be an important component and it breaks down at high case counts.
Pushing infections down to low levels also helps to keep new variants from evolving. As @JeremyFarrar told me: “It is essentially a numbers game: The more virus is circulating, the more chance mutants have to appear.” And one thing’s for sure: we don’t need more nasty surprises.
And on top of all this, the main argument against the strategy - that there is no exit strategy - is no longer true as immunizations have already started. “The case has never been stronger,” @firefoxx66 told me.
So yes, we may be in a new, less predictable, even more perilous phase of this pandemic, but as @BillHanage told me: “we have to stop this virus. … Fatalism is not a nonpharmaceutical intervention.”
