And 2 new non-South African sequences in 501Y.V2, from Australia for the first time.
2/12
To add to the excitement of your Saturday evening, the focal S:N501 build is now updated with data from 8th Jan, including 48 new seqs in 501Y.V1 (B.1.1.7 #b117) & 501Y.V2.
1/12
https://t.co/AbdhO1rqpw
And 2 new non-South African sequences in 501Y.V2, from Australia for the first time.
2/12
Ireland has 4 new sequences (orange). 2 sit separately but are identical, indicating an additional introduction. 2 link to a previous sequence (green), 1 mutation away each. This could indicate location transmission, unsampled diversity, or a common exposure.
3/12
4/12
5/12
6/12
7/12
8/12
Sweden has 1 new sequence (orange). It sits separately, indicating an additional introduction
9/12
Australia has sequences that fall into 501Y.V2 for the first time. Zooming in (divergence), we can see they are identical, indicating one introduction.
10/12
11/12
https://t.co/c7wlQOLRiq
12/12
https://t.co/6qBdWhREtl
More from Dr Emma Hodcroft
Lots of tweets about this today!
Let's see what we can see in the focal S:E484 build!
Phylogenetics (what I do - making 'family trees' from virus genetics) can be very informative to see how different variants are spreading, and how cases
There are two variants circulating predominantly in Brazil:
- 20B/S.484K seems to be older & more widespread. It has (among others) a mutation at position 484
- 20J/501Y.V3 is smaller & detected recently. It has mutations at 501 *and* 484.
2/10
https://t.co/Cw5u2kuATa
The variant predominantly in the UK (501Y.V1 / B.1.1.7) and the variant predominantly in South Africa (501Y.V2) also both have 501. 501Y.V2 *also* has the 484K mutation.
Why are there concerns about these mutations? You can read more at https://t.co/wVE7ubYBoy!
3/10
The view below is from an analysis focusing on sequences with a mutation at 484. It shows all the samples in the 2 variants (20B/S.484K & 20J/501Y.V3) & how they're related. More closely related = closer together (very, very roughly).
4/10
We can colour these samples by region to see where they're from. As we expect - most are in Brazil! A few are in Argentina (also red).
5/10
https://t.co/Cw5u2kuATa
Let's see what we can see in the focal S:E484 build!
Phylogenetics (what I do - making 'family trees' from virus genetics) can be very informative to see how different variants are spreading, and how cases
There are two variants circulating predominantly in Brazil:
- 20B/S.484K seems to be older & more widespread. It has (among others) a mutation at position 484
- 20J/501Y.V3 is smaller & detected recently. It has mutations at 501 *and* 484.
2/10
https://t.co/Cw5u2kuATa
The variant predominantly in the UK (501Y.V1 / B.1.1.7) and the variant predominantly in South Africa (501Y.V2) also both have 501. 501Y.V2 *also* has the 484K mutation.
Why are there concerns about these mutations? You can read more at https://t.co/wVE7ubYBoy!
3/10
The view below is from an analysis focusing on sequences with a mutation at 484. It shows all the samples in the 2 variants (20B/S.484K & 20J/501Y.V3) & how they're related. More closely related = closer together (very, very roughly).
4/10
We can colour these samples by region to see where they're from. As we expect - most are in Brazil! A few are in Argentina (also red).
5/10
https://t.co/Cw5u2kuATa
More from For later read
Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options
Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other
1/13
'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
2/13
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.
3/13
You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"
4/13
Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
5/13
Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵
Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.
Rachel Riley is listed as patron. https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0
SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks
Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut
Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.
Rachel Riley is listed as patron. https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0
SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks
Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut
Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
That targeted ads allow for "free" products for consumers is a common talking point and we're going to see more of it in the coming months.: https://t.co/Xty3My3f0u (1/14)
— Kevin Coates (@KevinCoates) February 16, 2021
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Great post by @Sherman1890 got me thinking about the future of targeted ads.
— Dirk Auer (@AuerDirk) February 12, 2021
More and more tools (privacy labels, ad blockers, GDPR) enable consumers to opt-out from targeted ads - can limit the data platforms receive or block ads altogether.
The end of targeted ads? \U0001f9f5\U0001f447 https://t.co/MA6A3BrUWq
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
