5 ms·

Direct link to the thread where he explains why the evidence, although not conclusive, strongly supports a higher infectivity of the new variant: https://mobile

Direct link to the thread where he explains why the evidence, although not conclusive, strongly supports a higher infectivity of the new variant: https://mobile.twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1340716901610172416 https://mobile.twitter.com/jcbarret/status/13407169016101724...

maest 6y ago
Are there any non-twitter sources available? I can't access that website. Also, I doubt twitter is the place where that information should live long-term anyway.
- iso1631 6y ago
  https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1340716901610172416.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1340716901610172416.html
- jghn 6y ago
  I did see him mention on twitter the other day that he was going to be on a BBC segment talking about this, so there could be video archives on that front
- _Microft 6y ago
  Try nitter, it's a fast alternative to reading Twitter content on Twitter itself. I modified the link above for you: https://nitter.net/jcbarret/status/1340716901610172416 https://nitter.net/jcbarret/status/1340716901610172416
muxator 6y ago
Visiting Hacker News with a text-mode browser (Links2, in this case) is so liberating! Twitter says that my browser is not supported (unsurprisingly enough). Well, I think I'll have to adapt to ditch a website that needs a shit-ton of JS to serve me a few KibiBytes of content.
timr 6y ago
This is a perfect example of mixing science and opinion, and we should be scolding "scientists" who do this without clarifying which is which, not lionizing them. The only definitively factual statement he makes is in the first tweet: "One of the key questions about the new variant (B.1.1.7) is whether there is conclusive evidence that it is more transmissible. I don't think we are absolutely certain yet" Everything else is speculation. He says that founder effect is not likely because the virus is spreading widely, nationwide: this is a hypothesis, not a statement of fact. He says that there are reasons to believe that the mutations are associated with structural regions known to be important to transmission: this is a hypothesis, not a statement of fact. He then says that because of these two unproven hypotheses (which he implicitly believes), one should "change your priors" on how likely it is that this strain is selectively advantaged. Certainly, one can "change their priors" based on personal opinion, but that doesn't mean that other informed scientists don't have different opinions. What this guy is doing is citing the (limited, non-definitive) evidence that we know, and then saying he has an opinion about what it all means. That doesn't make it factual. Without well-controlled cell-culture or animal studies that show that this strain is out-competing other strains in vivo, we don't have solid evidence either way. Trying to predict the organism-level impact of point mutations is a fun parlor game, but no more or less definitive than asking a sports fan which team is going to win on Sunday.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  I don't wish to veer into ad hominem arguments, but it is worth noting that the UK government must be very relieved to be able to associate the new lockdown rules with the new strain of the virus. By pointing to an unpredictable external factor they can justify the apparent U-turn in their policy, while also not having to point the finger at any potential voters who may not have been following the rules well enough. Whether the government's political needs have an effect on how scientists interpret or represent their findings is something I only have a hypothesis about.
- m-ee 6y ago
  On TWiV they call it a SWAG, scientific wild ass guess
- 6y ago
jnxx 6y ago
There is also this comment by Eric Feigl-Ding: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1340913688992165888 https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1340913688992165888 > "14) “In the lab, Gupta’s group found that virus carrying the two mutations was less susceptible to convalescent plasma from several donors than the wildtype (common strain) virus. That suggests it can evade antibodies targeting the wildtype virus”!!" Could that mean that the "herd immunity strategy" by letting relatively healthy people being infected by the virus might fail utterly because the immunity they acquire does not help very much against the new variant?

maest 6y ago

Are there any non-twitter sources available? I can't access that website. Also, I doubt twitter is the place where that information should live long-term anyway.

iso1631 6y ago
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1340716901610172416.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1340716901610172416.html
jghn 6y ago
I did see him mention on twitter the other day that he was going to be on a BBC segment talking about this, so there could be video archives on that front
_Microft 6y ago
Try nitter, it's a fast alternative to reading Twitter content on Twitter itself. I modified the link above for you: https://nitter.net/jcbarret/status/1340716901610172416 https://nitter.net/jcbarret/status/1340716901610172416

muxator 6y ago

Visiting Hacker News with a text-mode browser (Links2, in this case) is so liberating! Twitter says that my browser is not supported (unsurprisingly enough). Well, I think I'll have to adapt to ditch a website that needs a shit-ton of JS to serve me a few KibiBytes of content.

timr 6y ago

This is a perfect example of mixing science and opinion, and we should be scolding "scientists" who do this without clarifying which is which, not lionizing them. The only definitively factual statement he makes is in the first tweet: "One of the key questions about the new variant (B.1.1.7) is whether there is conclusive evidence that it is more transmissible. I don't think we are absolutely certain yet" Everything else is speculation. He says that founder effect is not likely because the virus is spreading widely, nationwide: this is a hypothesis, not a statement of fact. He says that there are reasons to believe that the mutations are associated with structural regions known to be important to transmission: this is a hypothesis, not a statement of fact. He then says that because of these two unproven hypotheses (which he implicitly believes), one should "change your priors" on how likely it is that this strain is selectively advantaged. Certainly, one can "change their priors" based on personal opinion, but that doesn't mean that other informed scientists don't have different opinions. What this guy is doing is citing the (limited, non-definitive) evidence that we know, and then saying he has an opinion about what it all means. That doesn't make it factual. Without well-controlled cell-culture or animal studies that show that this strain is out-competing other strains in vivo, we don't have solid evidence either way. Trying to predict the organism-level impact of point mutations is a fun parlor game, but no more or less definitive than asking a sports fan which team is going to win on Sunday.

dane-pgp 6y ago
I don't wish to veer into ad hominem arguments, but it is worth noting that the UK government must be very relieved to be able to associate the new lockdown rules with the new strain of the virus. By pointing to an unpredictable external factor they can justify the apparent U-turn in their policy, while also not having to point the finger at any potential voters who may not have been following the rules well enough. Whether the government's political needs have an effect on how scientists interpret or represent their findings is something I only have a hypothesis about.
m-ee 6y ago
On TWiV they call it a SWAG, scientific wild ass guess
6y ago

jnxx 6y ago

There is also this comment by Eric Feigl-Ding: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1340913688992165888 https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1340913688992165888 > "14) “In the lab, Gupta’s group found that virus carrying the two mutations was less susceptible to convalescent plasma from several donors than the wildtype (common strain) virus. That suggests it can evade antibodies targeting the wildtype virus”!!" Could that mean that the "herd immunity strategy" by letting relatively healthy people being infected by the virus might fail utterly because the immunity they acquire does not help very much against the new variant?