Yes, I’ve read the original report upon which that claim is based. They make it utterly clear that the evidence is weak, and that genetic variants can achieve h

Yes, I’ve read the original report upon which that claim is based. They make it utterly clear that the evidence is weak, and that genetic variants can achieve high frequency even if selectively neutral: https://khub.net/documents/135939561/338928724/New+SARS-COV-2+variant+-+information+and+risk+assessment.pdf/b56d4591-0466-1a18-28dc-010e0fdeef53?t=1608569319930 https://khub.net/documents/135939561/338928724/New+SARS-COV-... This slide deck puts it in perspective: there’s a specific mutation that is increasing in prevalence in a certain surveillance network, there’s a hypothesis about why it might lead to increased spread, and it requires more investigation. That’s it. Any claim of knowledge about impact on Rt is simply wild exaggeration of the data. This is a case where if you don’t understand the field, you have no ability to judge the quality of the claim being made. People are irresponsibly reading second-hand sources, and quoting numbers out of context. Other people quote those sources, and before long, the snake is eating its own tail. I would wager that the author of that BMJ piece never even read the presentation I quoted above (even though it’s the cited source by NERVTAG for the “genetic evidence” claim in the brief whitepaper that the authors do cite). This stuff is almost 100% speculation.