1/ This is unreal. The study title is "Same-day SARS-CoV-2 antigen test screening in an indoor mass-gathering live music event: a randomised controlled trial." It is being cited as evidence that rapid antigen tests can make social events safe. But there are a couple problems...
2/ They gave rapid tests to over 1000 people and randomly divided those who tested negative into two groups. One went to a concert, where they were encouraged to dance and sing, and the others stayed home. I encourage you to read the entire abstract in the 2 pictures below.
3/ Results: None who went to the concert tested positive for Covid eight days later, but two of those who stayed home tested positive. Yay for rapid tests, right? Not exactly.
4/ You see, when they screened study participants with rapid antigen tests before the concert, NONE tested positive. That is to say, the rapid tests had ZERO effect on the results here.
5/ One would think this would merit a mention in the abstract, but the study authors apparently didn't think so. The study title indicates it's an RCT of rapid test screening for an indoor concert, yet there's no mention in the abstract that the rapid tests were irrelevant.
6/ Perhaps even more astonishing, nowhere in the discussion section of the paper do they mention that none of the rapid antigen tests were positive and that therefore no one was screened out of participating in the concert. Instead, they sing the praises of rapid tests.
7/ The authors do not let a little thing like the total irrelevance of the rapid antigen tests to the study's results prevent them from concluding their study provides evidence of the effectiveness of rapid tests as screening tools for indoor social events. You can't make it up.
8/ Though not mentioned in the study abstract, we are eventually told that concert attendees were required to wear an N95 mask at all times, except when drinking. I'm 100% for wearing N95 masks, but this is not likely to ever be adapted as policy in the real world.
9/ The ventilation was also extraordinarily good at the concert, maintaining CO2 at or below 800 ppm, much lower than the typical school classroom.
10/ In other words, the study was designed to give a result indicating the effectiveness of rapid antigen tests, & despite its failure to provide that result, the authors manage to come to the conclusion they wanted anyway.
11/ I should add that I'm open to the possibility that rapid antigen tests could be effective in preventing Covid transmission. But this study is a joke. It's disturbing that it was published by the Lancet & is apparently being taken seriously by prominent experts.
Addendum/ This study was funded by the events company Primavera Sound Group and YoMeCorono, which I know nothing about, but which appears to be funded by dozens of (mostly) Spanish corporations. yomecorono.com/en/empresas-qu…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Wow, BA.3.2 hits its 4th continent with a new sequence from Western Australia.
Reminder: BA.3.2 is a saltation variant resulting from a ~3-year chronic infection. It is very different from and more immune-evasive than all other current variants. 1/4
It was collected July 15, & is most closely related to the recent S African seqs from May & June.
It has an NSP5 mutation known to be beneficial (ORF1a:K3353R) & 2 new NSP12 mutations, which is unusual. Its 9 synonymous mutations indicate it has been circulating somewhere. 2/4
Seems clear now that BA.3.2 is not going away anytime soon. Its overall impact so far has been negligible, but at first BA.2.86's was as well. Once it got S:L455S (becoming JN.1) the dam burst & it set off a new wave in the global North. The question now is.... 3/4
BA.3.2 update: another sequence from the Netherlands, June 18 collection.
It belongs on the same branch as the GBW travel seq (tree gets confused by ORF7-8 deletion). Also, there are 3 artifactual muts in the GBW sequence (as usual), so the branch is shorter than it looks.
Bottom line, in my view: BA.3.2 has spread internationally & is likely growing, but very slowly. If nothing changes, its advantage vs circulating lineages, which seem stuck in an evolutionary rut, will likely gradually grow as immunity to dominant variants solidifies... 2/9
So far, this seems like a slow-motion version of what we saw with BA.2.86, which spread internationally & grew very slowly for months. But then it got S:L455S & exploded, wiping out all competitors. Will something similar happen with BA.3.2? I think there's a good chance... 3/9
Quick BA.3.2 update. Another BA.3.2.2 (S:K356T+S:A575S branch) from South Africa via pneumonia surveillance.
This means that 40% of SARS-CoV-2 sequences from SA collected since April 1 (2/5) and 50% collected after May 1 (1/2) are BA.3.2. Its foothold seems strong there. 1/3
2 interesting aspects of the new BA.3.2: 1. ORF1b:R1315C (NSP13_R392C)—This mut is in all Omicron *except* BA.3. So this may well be adaptive.
2. S:Q183H—First known antigenic spike mut seen in BA.3.2, not a major one, but one we've seen before—eg, LB.1/JN.1.9.2.1 2/3
I think the unusually long branches in the BA.3.2 tree indicate 2 things: 1. Slow growth globally—fast growth results in many identical sequences, if surveillance is sufficient
2. Undersampling—BA.3.2 most common in poorer world regions with little sequencing of late. 3/3
@yaem98684142 @TBM4_JP This analysis is extremely flawed.
There is nothing abnormal about BA.2.86 appearing in multiple countries shortly after discovery. This has been the norm lately w/reduced surveillance. 1/
@yaem98684142 @TBM4_JP The mutational spectrum analysis is poorly done. It cites a single study looking at the mutational spectrum in *three* immunocompromised individuals. Needless to say, this sample size is WAY too small. 3/
@yaem98684142 @TBM4_JP Furthermore, the IC people examined did not give rise to highly divergent variants with a large number of spike mutations. They appear to have accumulated a very modest number of mutations, with few substitutions in spike. The sequences themselves are apparently not published. 4/
Interesting recombinant showed up today from Texas. It's a mixture of B.1.595, BA.1, and some flavor of JN.1. Most of the genome is from B.1.595. The ancestry of this one is clear: it directly descends from a B.1.595 sequence collected in January 2023, also in Texas. 1/11
When the B.1.595 was collected this infection was >1 yr old, w/no sign of Omicron. BA.1 ceased circulating ~1 year prior.
Now a BA.1 spike appears w/just 5 changes from baseline BA.1, none in the RBD—S12F, T76I, Q271K, R765H, S939F.
This is a zombie BA.1 spike. 2/
There are only a few signs of JN.1, & they're scattered. In ORF1a, we see JN.1's V3593F, P3395H, & R3821K, but the NSP6 deletion btwn these—universal in Omicron—is absent. In
M has JN.1's D3H + T30A & E19Q (in JN.1 & BA.1), yet A63T—also in both BA.1 & JN.1 is absent. 3/11