I’ve written a lot in the last two weeks about #B117 and the uncertainty surrounding its exact effects.
So let me talk about something that we can be pretty certain about: what we should be doing.
New story is here: sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/v…
Quick thread to come.
First: How good is the evidence that #B117 is more transmissible? It’s still far from a slam dunk. But as @AdamJKucharski told me: “We're relying on multiple streams of imperfect evidence, but pretty much all that evidence is pointing in the same direction now.”
At this point we probably have to look to countries other than the UK for confirmation that #B117 is more transmissible.
“The dynamics and the spread of this strain internationally is probably going to be the strongest evidence we will have”, @EvolveDotZoo told me.
Of course when we see it spread in other countries as rapidly as in the UK, it’s also pretty late to do anything. This is basically a re-run of early 2020 and that’s why many scientists (and science journalists) feel a sense of déjà vu.
So the first thing we should have learnt from 2020 is that we need to act now, while the data is still uncertain. @firefoxx66 put it well: “I really hope that this time, we can recognize that this is our early alarm bell, and this is our chance to get ahead of this variant.”
The concern is clear, it’s that #B117 will “become the dominant global variant with its higher transmission and it will drive another very, very bad wave”, as @JeremyFarrar told me.
So what is it we should be doing to keep #B117 from spreading or to prepare for it? Well, what we should have been doing all along: pushing infections down to very low levels.
Point is: Arguments for the strategy have only increased.
Curbing the spread of a more transmissible variant will be difficult even with strict measures layered on top of each other. Test, trace and isolate will be an important component and it breaks down at high case counts.
Pushing infections down to low levels also helps to keep new variants from evolving. As @JeremyFarrar told me: “It is essentially a numbers game: The more virus is circulating, the more chance mutants have to appear.” And one thing’s for sure: we don’t need more nasty surprises.
And on top of all this, the main argument against the strategy - that there is no exit strategy - is no longer true as immunizations have already started. “The case has never been stronger,” @firefoxx66 told me.
So yes, we may be in a new, less predictable, even more perilous phase of this pandemic, but as @BillHanage told me: “we have to stop this virus. … Fatalism is not a nonpharmaceutical intervention.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’ve said before that I’m watching Denmark closely for clues on #B117, so a short update.
The Statens Serum Institut @SSI_dk has an interesting note here on the spread of B.1.1.7 (I’m using google translate): ssi.dk/aktuelt/nyhede…
@SSI_dk While cases in Denmark are declining and percentage of #B117 is still low, experts there expect that percentage to keep growing and estimate that the new variant could make up half of all infections in Denmark in 40-50 days.
@SSI_dk If that is true and #B117 takes over Danish experts expect cases in the country to rise again. By how much depends on how low the reproduction number R is.
The scientists estimate that reducing R to 0.7 (for the old variants) would keep the new variant from spreading too.
"We have entered a new phase of the pandemic where solidarity is needed like never before”, says @DrTedros at @WHO presser on #covid19.
"We are in a race to save lives right now."
@DrTedros@WHO “Case loads are so high in several countries that hospitals and intensive care units are filling up to dangerous levels”, says @drtedros. People mixed more indoors during holidays, he says. “New variants which appear to be more transmissible are exacerbating the situation."
@DrTedros@WHO "We are in a race to prevent infections, bring cases down, protect health systems and save lives, while rolling out highly effective and safe vaccines to high risk populations”, says @DrTedros. "his is not easy. These are the hard miles, we must tread together."
We’re in a new year and we have also entered a new phase of this pandemic. So I thought I’d start off the new year with a quick catch-up thread on the UK variant B.1.1.7 and where we are at in this pandemic.
The variant caught scientists' attention in early December based on a surge in cases around Kent and sequencing data showing it carried a host of mutations. (I wrote about this and how a quirk in the PCR is helping track it here: sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/m…).
CAVEAT: The pace at which we have learnt about this new variant is astonishing. But it’s important to realize that a lot of crucial lab experiments take longer. Most data now is looking at noisy epidemiological data and making inferences based on that.
"Although there is no information that infections with these strains are more severe, due to increased transmissibility the impact of #COVID19 disease in terms of hospitalisations and deaths is assessed as high."
@ECDC_EU "The probability of increased circulation of any SARS-CoV-2 strains and this placing greater pressure on health systems in the coming weeks is considered to be high due to the festive season and, higher still, in countries where the new variants are established."
@ECDC_EU "The UK has demonstrated that their sequencing programme is able to detect emerging variants. Ideally, Member States should aim for a similar timeliness and fraction of samples sequenced, although this will depend on the availability of resources."
Finally read the new update on UK variant B.1.1.7, posted yesterday, which includes a study suggesting the variant is no more (or less) severe than prior virus variants.
Just a very brief thread (or read the entire document here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…)
Researchers took 1769 cases of people infected with the new variant and then looked for 1769 cases of people with “normal” virus to compare them to. They chose these so that median age and proporion of females was the same. That’s why it’s called a “matched cohort study”
They then compared hospitalizations for the two groups:
Overall 42 people were hopsitalized,
16 with the variant
26 with wild-type
The difference between the two was not significant.
"This is a moment for all of us to reflect on the toll the pandemic has taken, the progress we have made, the lessons we have learned and what we need to do in the year ahead to end this pandemic”, says @DrTedros in last @WHO#covid19 presser of the year.
@DrTedros@WHO "Science is at the core of everything we do and it has advanced at a blistering speed this year”, says @drtedros.
@DrTedros@WHO "There will be setbacks and new challenges in the year ahead”, says @DrTedros. "For example, new variants of #COVID19 and helping people who are tired of the pandemic continue to combat it."