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
About 1 month after this monster BQ.1.1 appeared, an even more extreme sequence has shown up in Alberta. Like the BQ, it has 50 private spike mutations, but it also has >40 AA mutations elsewhere in the genome. 1/6
They include the full panoply of NSP3, NSP12, & N muts I've written about previously. ORF1a:S4398L is the most common mutation in the 4395-4398 region, this has ∆S4398, a rarity also seen in a few other extremely divergent seqs w/this constellation. 2/6
In a theme that's become familiar, it's added two spike NTD glycans, N30 (via F32S) and N155 (via S155N+F157S).
Another chronic-infection leitmotif (first noted by @SolidEvidence): reversions to common or consensus residues in related Bat-CoVs, including SARS-1. 3/6
A fascinating SARS-CoV-2 sequence was recently uploaded—collected from a dog in Kazakhstan in July 2022.
Usher places the seq 1 nuc mut from the Wuhan ref seq—C21846T/S:T95I—i.e. pre-D614G. Could this seq somehow have a close connection to the first days of the pandemic?
1/19
Of the sequences near this one on the tree, all are low-quality & clearly bad BA.1 or Delta sequences. The only genuine one is from the UK, collected April 2020. So it's likely even S:T95I was not inherited.
This sequence has several fascinating aspects. 2/
(This all assumes the sequence is accurate and that C241T & C14408T (ORF1b:P314L) are genuinely absent. Its mutational characteristics make me certain this is a good sequence, though it's not impossible there's dropout not indicated hiding C241T and/or C14408T.) 3/
Do you remember BA.3—the weakling cousin of BA.1 & BA.2 that seemed to take the worst from each & had weaker ACE2 binding than even the ancestral Wuhan Virus?
After 3 years, BA.3 is back.
And it is transmitting.
Who saw this coming?
1/13
While the full extent of the new BA.3’s spread is not known, it’s been detected in 2 different South African regions through regular (not targeted) surveillance by @Dikeled61970012, @Tuliodna, & the invaluable South African virology community.
2/13 github.com/cov-lineages/p…
After nearly 3 years of intrahost evolution in a chronically infected person, the new BA.3 is almost unrecognizable. It has ~41 spike AA substitutions (4 of which are 2-nuc muts) to go with 14 AA deletions (∆136-147+∆243-244). We’ve seen nothing like this since 2023.
3/13
Fantastic review on chronic SARS-CoV-2 infections by virological superstars Richard Neher & Alex Sigal in Nature Microbiology. I’ll do a short overview, outline a couple minor quibbles, & defend the honor of ORF9b w/some stats & 3 striking sequences from the past week.
1/64
First, let me say that this is well-written, extremely readable, and accessible to non-experts, so you should go read the full paper yourself, if you can find a way to access it. (Just realized it’s paywalled, ugh.) 2/64nature.com/articles/s4157…
Neher & Sigal focus on the 2 most important aspects of SARS-CoV-2 persistence: its relationship to Long Covid (including increased risk of adverse health events) & its vital importance to the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants. I’ll focus on the evolutionary aspects.
3/64
In SARS-2 evolution, amino acid (AA) mutations get the lion’s share of attention—& rightfully so, as noncoding & synonymous nucleotide muts—which cause no AA change‚ are mostly inconsequential. But there are many exceptions, including a possible new one I find intriguing. 1/30
I’ll discuss four categories of such “silent” mutations, two of which might be involved in the recent growth of one synonymous mutation.
Maybe the single most remarkable example of convergent evolution in SARS-CoV-2 involves noncoding mutations: the multitude of muts in major variants that have pulverized the nucleocapsid (N) Kozak sequence.
I wrote about this below & a few other 🧵s 3/