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

You May Also Like

First thread of the year because I have time during MCO. As requested, a thread on the gods and spirits of Malay folk religion. Some are indigenous, some are of Indian origin, some have Islamic


Before I begin, it might be worth explaining the Malay conception of the spirit world. At its deepest level, Malay religious belief is animist. All living beings and even certain objects are said to have a soul. Natural phenomena are either controlled by or personified as spirits

Although these beings had to be respected, not all of them were powerful enough to be considered gods. Offerings would be made to the spirits that had greater influence on human life. Spells and incantations would invoke their


Two known examples of such elemental spirits that had god-like status are Raja Angin (king of the wind) and Mambang Tali Arus (spirit of river currents). There were undoubtedly many more which have been lost to time

Contact with ancient India brought the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism to SEA. What we now call Hinduism similarly developed in India out of native animism and the more formal Vedic tradition. This can be seen in the multitude of sacred animals and location-specific Hindu gods
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?