Protip: Beim "Fehler eingestehen" nicht für andere sprechen.
Es ist schwer die Fassung zu bewahren, wenn ein rückgratloser Heuchler seine eigenen Fehler nicht eingestehen kann und die amorphe "internationale Gemeinschaft" mit einbezieht.
Thread 🧵 1/
Es gab im Mai einen offenen Brief von Bundeswehrgenerälen im Ruhestand und namhaften ExpertInnen die den mangelhaften Aufnahmeplan angeprangert haben.
Es war bereits absehbar dass die Taliban das Land mit gewisser Wahrscheinlichkeit übernehmen würden. 2/ augengeradeaus.net/2021/05/offene…
Due Unterzeichner sind wirklich das Who-is-Who der Afghanistan-Kenner-Szene:
- ehemalige Oberbefehlshaber, die in Afghanistan im Einsatz waren
- Deutsche Botschafter in Afghanistan
- Schneiderhan, der höchste deutsche General von 2002-2009
- und viele mehr 3/
Jetzt wie @HeikoMaas die Schuld in die Breite zu schieben ist einfach unfassbar.
Es ist zynisch, ausgerechnet jetzt wo fast niemand mehr rauskommt die Aufnahmekriterien "auszuweiten".
Das ist wie eine Begnadigung Sekunden nach der Exekution. 4/
Die Aufgabe des Außenministeriums und auch der Regierung als ganzes ist es Eventualplanungen anzustellen, und nicht die Daumen zu drücken, dass sich das Thema bis nach dem Wahlkampf hinauszögert.
Das wäre ein ehrliches Eingeständnis. 5/
Aufrichtig wäre:
"Ich habe gehofft, dass das nie passiert. Im Wahlkampf hätten die schwierigen Entscheidungen zu viel Aufmerksamkeit gekostet. Deswegen habe ich die Planungen nicht so schnell vorangetrieben wie ich es hätte tun sollen. Dafür übernehme ich die Verantwortung." 6/
Das gilt natürlich genauso für AKK, Seehofer und Laschet, der jetzt von "Hilfe vor Ort" und "2015" faselt.
Ja, ich wusste es selbst nicht besser.
Aber dafür haben wir Experten (die warnten!) und Politiker, die sich mit der Planung beschäftigen sollten. 7/ spiegel.de/politik/afghan…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here are counts of BA.2.86 and overall sequence submissions to GISAID
Note that the English sample included in week 2023-08-07 likely got expedited, so it may be best to exclude from this analysis. 1/
In my very rough reading, there's not enough data yet to pin down growth advantage. It could be small or non-existent, or it could be sizeable, e.g. doubling every week.
Bear in mind that due to constant antigenic drift, there are always lineages with decent growth advantage. 2/
To really have an impact, BA.2.86 would have to become dominant, outgrowing even the fittest lineages around, e.g. HK.3 (EG.5.1 with S:L455F) or FL.1.5.1 (456L, 478R) which themselves are doubling in share about every two weeks. 3/
EG.5 (and EG.5.1) has recently got attention due to being highlighted by @UKHSA and @WHO.
EG.5, which is an alias for XBB.1.9.2.5, is a sublineage of XBB characterized in particular by Spike RBD mutation F456L. 1/
EG.5 is one of the fastest growing XBB sublineages, particularly common in China where it appears to be dominant.
As EG.5 has only one RBD difference compared to the upcoming vaccine strain XBB.1.5 vaccine protection is expected to be good. 2/
While the name EG.5 may sound very different from XBB, it is important to know that this is just due to naming - EG.5 is the short form of XBB.1.9.2.5. 3/
It appears that China has stopped uploading SARS-CoV-2 sequences to GISAID and now shares via its own version of Genbank: Genbase github.com/yatisht/usher/…
I don't yet fully understand the terms under which China shares the sequences - I assume (and hope_ they are just as open as Genbank.
In that case this is a great development towards having as much SARS-CoV-2 data being free of usage restrictions as possible.
GISAID should still be able to integrate the data in their platform (unless the license prohibits it, if it's Genbank-like then GISAID can pull the data as they've done with Genbank-only published sequences).
I'm seeing quite a bit of discussion about the potential impact of a big wave in mainland China on variant evolution.
I do not think a big wave in mainland China would have major consequences outside of China. 1/
While China is a big country, it has less than 20% of the global population. The rate at which new variants evolve would only increase slightly as a result of fractionally more infections worldwide. 2/
We have by now seen multiple second generation BA.2 variants evolve independently: BA.4/5 in Southern Africa, BA.2.75 in South Asia, BA.2.3.20 in the Philippines, BS.1 in South East Asia. 3/
For straightforward problems, @github Copilot really rocks.
Yes, as a Python dev, I could code this up myself in less than a minute
But why spend mental energy on this if it can be auto-generated?
As a beginner, this could have easily taken me a few minutes. Now it's just seconds
And the only unnatural about this example is that I deleted the output generated by copilot before recording.
Everything else is exactly as it was when I did it.
Nothing contrived, very natural usage pattern.
It's hard to think of a better way of solving this problem.
Copilot chose a very pythonic solution.
There's a good chance handwritten solutions by many developers would be less idiomatic and more confusing.
BQ.1* and XBB have different geographic foci
BQ.1* is mostly in Africa, Europe and North America
XBB in South (East) Asia
3 countries with similar levels worth watching for comparison and potential co-circulation are:
- Japan
- Australia
- South Korea cov-spectrum.org/explore/World/… 1/
BQ.1.1 and XBB have quite a lot of spike differences and seem to have similar growth advantages - this makes them candidates for co-circulation.
We may only be able to know once we see how the variants do in countries that had a wave with the other one. 2/
Here are the mutations that only occur in one of the two variants:
XBB only: S:V83A, S:Y144-, S:H146Q, S:Q183E, S:V213E, S:G339H, S:R346T, S:L368I, S:V445P, S:G446S, S:F486S, S:F490
BQ.1.1 only:
S:H69-, S:V70-, S:V213G, S:G339D, S:K444T, S:L452R, S:F486V 3/