Question for #IDtwitter @soupvector and evolutionary virologists about B.1.1.7 VOC: I see that the 'wild type' SCV-2 had a measured R0 in the UK of 0.95, while B.1.1.7 was 1.45, which is admittedly *greater*. But is that enough to conclude it is much more transmissible?
Reminder, Measles R0 is >10. Other points, when uninfected hosts are not limiting, why is wild type being fully replaced by B.1.1.7 unless there is some degree of founder effects?
Confidence interval on B.1.1.7 (if I'm reading the PHE document properly) is 95% CI: 1.34-1.59, and the change in R0 is estimated at 0.74 [95%CI: 0.44- 1.29], so perhaps not at all more transmissible?
Also, the Ct data that have been made available (not in the PHE document) have not been controlled for time of sampling, so presumably aggressive testing in the B.1.1.7 outbreak might have shown elevated viral abundance, but wild type samples may have been taken later, on avg.
Help #IDtwitter !
Just to clarify the question, I am not asking whether a true increase in transmission would not have substantial effects on health care systems, even at 50%. I am asking whether there is a true 50% increase in transmission @soupvector @KateGrabowski
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
