We’re in a new year and we have also entered a new phase of this pandemic. So I thought I’d start off the new year with a quick catch-up thread on the UK variant B.1.1.7 and where we are at in this pandemic.
Good news first: There still is no evidence that the variant causes more severe disease or that it can reinfect people more easily or circumvent vaccine-induced immunity. Still, we need to stay vigilant.
"While rapid growth of the variant was first observed in the South East, similar growth patterns are observed later in London, East of England, and now more generally across England.”
https://t.co/QcyT8CmEb3
https://t.co/HMTNQLXa7R
86 cases of B.1.1.7 identified in Denmark since November (11% of all cases sequenced in the period). Last 4 weeks we have sequenced 1500-2000 genomes pr. week broadly representing DK. The percentage of B.1.1.7 has been 0.2, 0.5, 0.9, and 2.3 (week 52). https://t.co/NtZklQOVPs
— Mads Albertsen (@MadsAlbertsen85) January 2, 2021
I don’t think it has really sunk in, how serious this is.
Many countries have managed to reduce infections to low numbers by layering a lot of public health interventions on top of each other: teleworking, physical distancing, masks, no large gatherings, some kinds of shutdown etc.
Or, if you think of it in terms of the Swiss cheese model, we can afford fewer, smaller holes in the cheese.
https://t.co/FhC5Tw7qwq
A new version with colour & division inspiration from @uq_news and strict mouse design oversight by @kat_arden (ver3.0).
— \u026a\u1d00\u0274 \u1d0d. \u1d0d\u1d00\u1d04\u1d0b\u1d00\u028f, \u1d18\u029c\u1d05 \U0001f9a0\U0001f927\U0001f9ec\U0001f97c\U0001f99f\U0001f9fb (@MackayIM) October 24, 2020
It reorganises slices into personal & shared responsibilities (think of this in terms of all the slices rather than any single layer being most important) pic.twitter.com/nNwLWZTWOL
More from For later read
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/