Now, a more technical tweet thread to give updates on the science - which is moving fast. Again, I recommend following @arambaut, @firefoxx66, @EBIgoldman, @The_Soup_Dragon, @pathogenomenick and @jcbarret along with others to stay on the cutting edge of this

Most important has been the paper by the @CovidGenomicsUK consortium on the new variant, here: https://t.co/b7yFFPXmsE
(This is super-rapid pre-print on https://t.co/PHmxAcVUoB - other people will pick over this no doubt - but the openness of the data and quality of analysis from this group means this is super solid, and any updates on discussion likely to happen fast)
Two key take aways from this paper for me:
1. There is a big jump in number of changes - too big to be explainable with the natural progression over time. @arambaut and colleagues point out that similar big jumps have happened in immunocompromised patients treated via convalescent plasma + drugs
2. This means there are both a number of potential things that could have changed and that it might be that there is synergistic effects - one now needs to test out what things are different in the lab and then work through each one in turn if there is a difference.
The other complication to this is that the 69/70 deletion is present on this branch. This deletion is complex for a variety of reasons
1. Firstly it is recurrent. We have seen this globally in Lyon (but to stress - *just* this event not the whole strain) and in the Danish outbreak that ended up in Mink farms (again, *just* this change not the whole set).
It is unusual to have sequenced so many individuals where one has a slow(ish) moving mutation rate and recurrent mutation. This is what gives @EBIgoldman and colleagues some new headaches (should one collapse multiple observations of the same sequence in likelihood calcs?)
2. This site overlaps with primer sites for some widely used RT-PCR tests. To stress, nearly all RT-PCR tests use 3 (sometimes more!) sites to assess, so having one "drop out" as it is called is ok.
This sounds concerning at first glance but shouldn't be (this is why they do 3 sites!) and for sure the test site will be moved. However, it does mean we can see this in the RT-PCR testing itself.
Here is Tony Cox, @The_Soup_Dragon showing how this variant rose over time. Please note that early on the red line here is likely to be a mixture of viral versions which have this change, but then you can see it take off. https://t.co/BWCHYFR1qy
This means we've got the numbers for lineage displacement (not just growth), meaning scientists can be pretty confident that this version of the virus is growing.
The recurrent mutation of this virus is interesting, and this variant also shares a mutation with a South African strain that also came into the news for potential faster transmission - to stress, these are certainly different lineages.

More from Science

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.
1. I find it remarkable that some medics and scientists aren’t raising their voices to make children as safe as possible. The comment about children being less infectious than adults is unsupported by evidence.


2. @c_drosten has talked about this extensively and @dgurdasani1 and @DrZoeHyde have repeatedly pointed out flaws in the studies which have purported to show this. Now for the other assertion: children are very rarely ill with COVID19.

3. Children seem to suffer less with acute illness, but we have no idea of the long-term impact of infection. We do know #LongCovid affects some children. @LongCovidKids now speaks for 1,500 children struggling with a wide range of long-term symptoms.

4. 1,500 children whose parents found a small campaign group. How many more are out there? We don’t know. ONS data suggests there might be many, but the issue hasn’t been studied sufficiently well or long enough for a definitive answer.

5. Some people have talked about #COVID19 being this generation’s Polio. According to US CDC, Polio resulted in inapparent infection in more than 99% of people. Severe disease occurred in a tiny fraction of those infected. Source:
@mugecevik is an excellent scientist and a responsible professional. She likely read the paper more carefully than most. She grasped some of its strengths and weaknesses that are not apparent from a cursory glance. Below, I will mention a few points some may have missed.
1/


The paper does NOT evaluate the effect of school closures. Instead it conflates all ‘educational settings' into a single category, which includes universities.
2/

The paper primarily evaluates data from March and April 2020. The article is not particularly clear about this limitation, but the information can be found in the hefty supplementary material.
3/


The authors applied four different regression methods (some fancier than others) to the same data. The outcomes of the different regression models are correlated (enough to reach statistical significance), but they vary a lot. (heat map on the right below).
4/


The effect of individual interventions is extremely difficult to disentangle as the authors stress themselves. There is a very large number of interventions considered and the model was run on 49 countries and 26 US States (and not >200 countries).
5/

You May Also Like

And here they are...

THE WINNERS OF THE 24 HOUR STARTUP CHALLENGE

Remember, this money is just fun. If you launched a product (or even attempted a launch) - you did something worth MUCH more than $1,000.

#24hrstartup

The winners 👇

#10

Lattes For Change - Skip a latte and save a life.

https://t.co/M75RAirZzs

@frantzfries built a platform where you can see how skipping your morning latte could do for the world.

A great product for a great cause.

Congrats Chris on winning $250!


#9

Instaland - Create amazing landing pages for your followers.

https://t.co/5KkveJTAsy

A team project! @bpmct and @BaileyPumfleet built a tool for social media influencers to create simple "swipe up" landing pages for followers.

Really impressive for 24 hours. Congrats!


#8

SayHenlo - Chat without distractions

https://t.co/og0B7gmkW6

Built by @DaltonEdwards, it's a platform for combatting conversation overload. This product was also coded exclusively from an iPad 😲

Dalton is a beast. I'm so excited he placed in the top 10.


#7

CoderStory - Learn to code from developers across the globe!

https://t.co/86Ay6nF4AY

Built by @jesswallaceuk, the project is focused on highlighting the experience of developers and people learning to code.

I wish this existed when I learned to code! Congrats on $250!!