Yes, this could still just be a travel effect.
But even then, therise in the Indian variant B.1.617.2 in the UK and US is stunning.
I'm watching this graph daily. Whether it's just travel or also higher transmissibility, we'll learn over the next 2 weeks.
outbreak.info/location-repor…
But even then, therise in the Indian variant B.1.617.2 in the UK and US is stunning.
I'm watching this graph daily. Whether it's just travel or also higher transmissibility, we'll learn over the next 2 weeks.
outbreak.info/location-repor…
Because India is huge and sequencing very little, data from India needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
But I don't like what I'm seeing there.
B.1.1.7 has been present there since early December like in Europe.
Yet its share has been dropping recently.
outbreak.info/location-repor…
But I don't like what I'm seeing there.
B.1.1.7 has been present there since early December like in Europe.
Yet its share has been dropping recently.
outbreak.info/location-repor…
I see two possible explanations:
Option a) Indian sequencing is extremely biased. B.1.1.7 was only ever present in limited areas. It never made it to the areas that see a huge surge now, where B.1.617.1/2 just happened to already be present.
Option a) Indian sequencing is extremely biased. B.1.1.7 was only ever present in limited areas. It never made it to the areas that see a huge surge now, where B.1.617.1/2 just happened to already be present.
The share of B.1.617.x is growing because it gets imported to areas that have sequencing. B.1.1.7 is still overall more competitive.
Option b) B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.2 in particular are more transmissible than B.1.1.7, that's why their share is growing faster than B.1.1.7
Option b) B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.2 in particular are more transmissible than B.1.1.7, that's why their share is growing faster than B.1.1.7
I do hope that option a), sampling bias, is right. That B.1.617.2 just happened to grow in a place where B.1.1.7 for some reason never made it far.
But looking at data at state-level in India, though patchy, doesn't convince me this explanation is right.
outbreak.info/location-repor…
But looking at data at state-level in India, though patchy, doesn't convince me this explanation is right.
outbreak.info/location-repor…
B.1.1.7 was present in Maharashtra already back in December. And B.1.617.1 and .2 pop up and grow overwhelmingly.
Maharashtra is one of the hard hit large states. It's unlikely it's just getting a lot of importation from other surge states.
Maharashtra is one of the hard hit large states. It's unlikely it's just getting a lot of importation from other surge states.
Considering Occam's razor, it looks to me as though B.1.617 is more competitive.
Please try to prove me wrong. I don't want this to be true.
What are arguments against B.1.617.2 being more transmissible?
The fact we haven't seen large clusters in Europe with it yet?
Please try to prove me wrong. I don't want this to be true.
What are arguments against B.1.617.2 being more transmissible?
The fact we haven't seen large clusters in Europe with it yet?
But it only recently appeared in Europe. It didn't have much time to make itself known in outbreaks.
What should we look out for to distinguish between travel and transmissibility effects? What would be the signatures of each? With B.1.617.2 at 8% in UK we need to talk now.
What should we look out for to distinguish between travel and transmissibility effects? What would be the signatures of each? With B.1.617.2 at 8% in UK we need to talk now.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
