I am not full sure people appreciate the impact of B117 strain on the course of the pandemic. TL;DR B117 is "a pandemic inside a pandemic" and demands both monitoring and preparation for when it arrives in a location. Vaccination is even more of a priority due to B117.

Context: I am an expert on human genetics and computational biology. I know experts in viral evolution, testing, infectious epidemiology, clinical trials. I have COIs in that I am long established consultant to @nanopore and I am on the Ox/AZ vaccine trial.
B117 clearly transmits faster. This has been clear in a UK context now for over a month, with particularly insightful backtracking of growth of B117 from low levels through October/November; it is true in Denmark; it is true in Ireland.
(Shout out the fast responding science of @CovidGenomicsUK, of the analysis of @jcbarret and @arambaut, of clever genomics-epi models of @MoritzGerstung and @harald_voeh and on it testing / spidey sense of @The_Soup_Dragon)
(In Denmark their excellent genomic surveillance, similar to UK's allows Denmark to know about the growth of B117 from low level in the context of other strains - props to @MadsAlbertsen85 and colleagues; In Ireland it is becoming one of the dominant variants)
There are pretty firm signs of growth of B117 in the USA from @alexbolze - this is interesting in that S-gene target failure is not a good enough proxy (yet) for B117 growth - Mass. has appreciable S-gene target failure but it is not the B117 variant. It is growing in Cal and FL.
B117 is likely to grow everywhere; almost certainly where the other variants were held at around R~1, and possibly other places. It's final growth rate in different settings will be somewhat different, but across UK, DK+IE, doubling every week is a crude estimate in 2020 settings
Doubling every week means *8 fold* in a month and *64 fold* in two months. As @AdamJKucharski says, this is a pandemic inside a pandemic. It *will* rapidly move through populations.
The lack of aggregate growth now in cases in a particular country or region either means (a) you haven't got B117 yet (be happy) or (b) it is present but growing from low levels (as it did in the UK in September/October). (b) is both realistic and the very high risk situation.
A reminder that this virus causes a nasty disease (COVID) which often leads to death. This means that when the virus moves through the population the healthcare service has extraordinary patient pressure, far, far beyond the capabilities for it to match.
What to do? This is complex and ultimately has to work inside a country's and region's response, and most of it is obvious. I am not a pro at this but I do have broad scientific expertise and keep touch with experts across fields. These are just my views, informed by this network
1. No stone should be left unturned on improving vaccination rates. Vaccination in a risk stratification manner will reduce - potentially quite radically - the health care capacity issues.
1. (cont). It is clear from the vaccination rates in Israel, Bahrain, UK, US and Denmark that one can vaccinate at a reasonable rate in countries - Israel being a stand out performer - but all these countries doing reasonably well.
2. One should gather S-gene target failure tests over the 69-70 deletion, and sequence a subset of these (randomly drawn ideally) to be able to plot growth of B117 in a country. Ideally one randomly sequences a subsets of positives regardless of test (as UK+DK have been doing).
3. If B117 levels are low one should use S-gene target failure tests to prioritise TTI levels around S-gene target failures (the false positives for it not being B117 is probably fine to tolerate)
4. As B117 grows one will have to move to more blanket lockdown measures. Across the pandemic the mistake is often to have to see solid evidence of growth; I would urge not making this mistake and "go early, go hard"
Ultimately 2, 3 and 4 are about slowing the growth of B117 - ie, tactics for a strategic aim. The strategic aim is 1 - vaccination. Nothing - nothing - should slow down safe progressive vaccination in any setting.
Finally as ever this is not a competition between nations; despite the sometimes intense inward looking discussions inside countries this is about humans vs virus; we need to help ourselves be safe; our family; our neighbours; our global humanity. Cheesy but nevertheless true.

More from Health

Public Health Scholarships

This may help for those considering MS/PhD in Public Health

1. The Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree in Public Health in Disasters
https://t.co/1Z5qpstsSu

2. Afya Bora Global Health

3. Carl Duisberg Scholarships

https://t.co/HnNXdbWBxy

4. Commonwealth Scholarships for Developing Countries

https://t.co/3fWGf5b2OH

5. Fellowships in Public Health & Tropical

6. Fellowships to Promote Mental Health Journalism

https://t.co/MVV9PFsBJ1

7. 2021-22 Jeroen Ensink Memorial Fund

8. Paul S. Lietman Global Travel Grant for Residents & Fellows

https://t.co/qK76R495QT

9. Global Health Internships and Funding

https://t.co/FD9Gh2wXvO

10. Kofi Annan Global Health Leadership

11. MA in European Public Health

https://t.co/5x0Vr7b1j8

12. MSc in Public Health Scholarships - Maastricht University,
1/16
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?

And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?

For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.


2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.

Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine

But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?

https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg


3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).

In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?

https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc


4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.

DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.

https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc


5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.

When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.

[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]

https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.


More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.

The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."

So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?

I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.

You May Also Like