SteveeRogerr's Categories
SteveeRogerr's Authors
Latest Saves
Hard agree. And if this is useful, let me share something that often gets omitted (not by @kakape).
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
Variants always emerge, & are not good or bad, but expected. The challenge is figuring out which variants are bad, and that can't be done with sequence alone.
Feels like the next thing we're going to need is a ranking system for how concerning "variants of concern\u201d actually are.
— Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) January 15, 2021
A lot of constellations of mutations are concerning, but people are lumping together variants with vastly different levels of evidence that we need to worry.
You can't just look at a sequence and say, "Aha! A mutation in spike. This must be more transmissible or can evade antibody neutralization." Sure, we can use computational models to try and predict the functional consequence of a given mutation, but models are often wrong.
The virus acquires mutations randomly every time it replicates. Many mutations don't change the virus at all. Others may change it in a way that have no consequences for human transmission or disease. But you can't tell just looking at sequence alone.
In order to determine the functional impact of a mutation, you need to actually do experiments. You can look at some effects in cell culture, but to address questions relating to transmission or disease, you have to use animal models.
The reason people were concerned initially about B.1.1.7 is because of epidemiological evidence showing that it rapidly became dominant in one area. More rapidly that could be explained unless it had some kind of advantage that allowed it to outcompete other circulating variants.
Dear Senator Hawley's Staff--
I'm sure you're loyal to your boss, but this man incited violence and you helped him. There is no "following orders" defense that will save you. You are part of this now.
And it is so much more serious than him simply "raising concerns."
š§µ
Prior to November 3rd, Joshua had nothing to say about Pennsylvania's vote by mail legislation.
2/
In fact, Joshua didn't have squat to say about election integrity either.
3/
By November 4th, when it was apparent that Trump would likely lose the election, Joshua--as a sitting US Senator--started tweeting out that Michigan was hiding secrets from the public.
Sowing doubt. Fanning the flames.
4/
So Joshua started this fake call for election integrity--a call he'd never made before.
At first he threw the whole kitchen sink out there--BigTech, ballot harvesting, poll watchers, counting, etc.
Sowing doubt. Fanning the flames.
5/
I'm sure you're loyal to your boss, but this man incited violence and you helped him. There is no "following orders" defense that will save you. You are part of this now.
And it is so much more serious than him simply "raising concerns."
š§µ
Sadly, much of the media and many members of the Washington establishment want to deceive Americans into thinking those who raised concerns incited violence, simply by voicing the concern. That\u2019s false. And the allegation itself is corrosive and dangerous. https://t.co/drhsK54MzQ pic.twitter.com/rEk9G5DOo5
— Senator Hawley Press Office (@SenHawleyPress) January 13, 2021
Prior to November 3rd, Joshua had nothing to say about Pennsylvania's vote by mail legislation.
2/
In fact, Joshua didn't have squat to say about election integrity either.
3/
By November 4th, when it was apparent that Trump would likely lose the election, Joshua--as a sitting US Senator--started tweeting out that Michigan was hiding secrets from the public.
Sowing doubt. Fanning the flames.
4/
So Joshua started this fake call for election integrity--a call he'd never made before.
At first he threw the whole kitchen sink out there--BigTech, ballot harvesting, poll watchers, counting, etc.
Sowing doubt. Fanning the flames.
5/
