4 ms·

VUI – 202012/01 on Wikipedia [1]: > The first Variant Under Investigation in December 2020 (VUI – 202012/01), also known as lineage B.1.1.7, is a variant of SA

VUI – 202012/01 on Wikipedia [1]: > The first Variant Under Investigation in December 2020 (VUI – 202012/01), also known as lineage B.1.1.7, is a variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The variant was first detected in the United Kingdom in October 2020 from a sample taken the previous month, and it quickly began to spread by mid-December. It is correlated with a significant increase in the rate of COVID-19 infection in England; this increase is thought to be at least partly because of mutation N501Y inside the spike glycoprotein's receptor-binding domain, which is needed for binding to ACE2 in human cells. Correlation does not equal causation. Most of the northern hemisphere is experiencing a significant increase in cases, i.e., a second wave. It has not yet been established whether this variant exhibits a unique pathogenesis. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VUI_–_202012/01 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VUI_–_202012/01

jsnell 6y ago
But it's not just about there being correlation between the variant appearing, and there being a new wave. That is a pretty weak data point by itself. We have more evidence and everything so far is pointing in the same direction. The big deal to me is that this variant is muscling out others in sequencing (+ PCR tests which by coincidence can tell the difference between this variant and the previously dominant ones), despite there being a high prevalence. And while the details are sparse, the NERVTAG minutes refer to evidence showing that the patients infected by the new variant have higher viral loads.
- raadore 6y ago
  On dec 10 WHO released a statement on their website admitting that PCR tests are faulty, will detect anything we want them to detect and therefore medical staff need to look for symptoms which basically means you’re sick if you have symptoms. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-not... As a scientist that information tells me that all cases have to be considered faulty since the foundation is faulty. The results cannot be trusted.
  - sradman 6y ago
    Not relevant. Variants are detected using full sequencing.
  - fsh 6y ago
    The statement you linked to says no such thing.
  - thanatosmin 6y ago
    You are misrepresenting the WHO statement. It’s covering a small technical issue that setting the Ct threshold for PCR tests can vary the false positive rate, particularly when there is low prevalence. Because use of this, it can be helpful to consider the Ct value of a positive result. It does not say the Ct threshold has been set incorrectly, or that PCR tests “are faulty.”
gewa 6y ago
In this case, the B.1.1.7 variant has shown to be highly abundant in recent COVID-19 cases in the UK. Much higher compared to other mutations which are tracked too. This is pretty clear evidence of an increased infection rate or evolutionary advantage as there has to be some driving force for this process. Take a look at this Report from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium. The B.1.1.7 mutations N501Y + Δ69-70 and N501Y are very recent and mostly showed up during the last 28 days. [1] https://www.cogconsortium.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Report-1_COG-UK_19-December-2020_SARS-CoV-2-Mutations.pdf https://www.cogconsortium.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Repo...
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  That doesn't rule out a combination of slightly increased infectiousness and a founder effect, which is equally possible at this stage.
wongarsu 6y ago
It's not just that there is an increase in cases after the mutation appeared. It's that in the regions where this mutation is prevalent there are many more cases than in other parts of the same country (and in fact case numbers are growing in regions with this variant and falling elsewhere). The other hint is that the new mutation is becoming the prevalent strain in south-east England, which on it's own would already indicate that it has an evolutionary advantage over other strains that allows it to outcompete them. Combined with everything else we know it seems clear that this advantage is faster spread.
jnxx 6y ago
> Correlation does not equal causation. Yeah but if somebody is shot and you are found with a smoking gun right around the corner, you need to have a pretty good, and also testable explanation.

jsnell 6y ago

But it's not just about there being correlation between the variant appearing, and there being a new wave. That is a pretty weak data point by itself. We have more evidence and everything so far is pointing in the same direction. The big deal to me is that this variant is muscling out others in sequencing (+ PCR tests which by coincidence can tell the difference between this variant and the previously dominant ones), despite there being a high prevalence. And while the details are sparse, the NERVTAG minutes refer to evidence showing that the patients infected by the new variant have higher viral loads.

raadore 6y ago
On dec 10 WHO released a statement on their website admitting that PCR tests are faulty, will detect anything we want them to detect and therefore medical staff need to look for symptoms which basically means you’re sick if you have symptoms. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-not... As a scientist that information tells me that all cases have to be considered faulty since the foundation is faulty. The results cannot be trusted.
- sradman 6y ago
  Not relevant. Variants are detected using full sequencing.
- fsh 6y ago
  The statement you linked to says no such thing.
- thanatosmin 6y ago
  You are misrepresenting the WHO statement. It’s covering a small technical issue that setting the Ct threshold for PCR tests can vary the false positive rate, particularly when there is low prevalence. Because use of this, it can be helpful to consider the Ct value of a positive result. It does not say the Ct threshold has been set incorrectly, or that PCR tests “are faulty.”

gewa 6y ago

In this case, the B.1.1.7 variant has shown to be highly abundant in recent COVID-19 cases in the UK. Much higher compared to other mutations which are tracked too. This is pretty clear evidence of an increased infection rate or evolutionary advantage as there has to be some driving force for this process. Take a look at this Report from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium. The B.1.1.7 mutations N501Y + Δ69-70 and N501Y are very recent and mostly showed up during the last 28 days. [1] https://www.cogconsortium.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Report-1_COG-UK_19-December-2020_SARS-CoV-2-Mutations.pdf https://www.cogconsortium.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Repo...

lbeltrame 6y ago
That doesn't rule out a combination of slightly increased infectiousness and a founder effect, which is equally possible at this stage.

wongarsu 6y ago

It's not just that there is an increase in cases after the mutation appeared. It's that in the regions where this mutation is prevalent there are many more cases than in other parts of the same country (and in fact case numbers are growing in regions with this variant and falling elsewhere). The other hint is that the new mutation is becoming the prevalent strain in south-east England, which on it's own would already indicate that it has an evolutionary advantage over other strains that allows it to outcompete them. Combined with everything else we know it seems clear that this advantage is faster spread.

jnxx 6y ago

> Correlation does not equal causation. Yeah but if somebody is shot and you are found with a smoking gun right around the corner, you need to have a pretty good, and also testable explanation.