Having to head to the airport early after a meeting that was marked by so many parallel sessions I wanted to go to that I had to keep hopping between them. Sorry to miss the great @NathanGrubaugh speaking ☹️ #ICEID 1/n
And getting to meet great people like @Michigan_Noah doing great work to increase confidence in vaccines (thx @GYamey for suggesting we meet up!) 3/n
Speaking of which met @d_ramonfaur last night and saw him in action chatting with members of the public about their anxieties around vaccination! So many people doing such important work 4/n
My own talk was basically an opening act for the following from @PardisSabeti of @sabeti_lab about their great science showing the value of genomes to study outbreaks 5/n
In person meetings - great to be back at them. Nothing beats meeting in 3D. A great few days with great people. Now back to Boston feeling inspired. Thanks #ICEID and all who helped make it happen 6/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This was posted while I was away, but very interesting and important work on the date the current monkeypox outbreak virus start circulating among humans - it's been a while virological.org/t/an-apobec3-m… 1/n
The outbreak virus is accumulating change that looks a bit weird - in terms of the precise 'mutations' and the rate (more than you'd expect). This is consistent with editing of the genome during infection of human cells 2/n
These characteristic mutations arise from something called APOBEC3. So the authors were able to add up the numbers of such changes, plot against date of isolation, and then extrapolate back to when they started. Looks like this has been circulating in humans quite a while 3/n
There are several things about @mattwridley’s article that are misleading (and self contradictory) but this, for me, is the most flagrant (read on - more than 280 characters required) 1/n
The left screen grab is from his article. The right is from the paper he’s criticizing - it specifically is limited to early cases *without* known links to the market. Ridley’s article ignores this
note too how Ridley speaks of case definitions in the first two weeks of 2020, which is itself quite a limited time frame and only a fraction of that considered in the paper
Lots of serious discussion and nuance - in other words the opposite of social media (as one speaker put it, "Twitter is about winning") but hopefully as I what I learned it will be reflected on here
Kudos to all speakers and panelists and to @mlipsitch@yhgrad and Caroline Buckee for sorting it out as well as all the @CCDD_HSPH folks who helped make it happen
This article about possible long term replication of virus in some Long Covid patients is pretty good and measured, but this comment about antivirals is off base 1/n theguardian.com/society/2022/j…
Firstly, in the absence of trials that demonstrate benefit, this is hypothetical – it is not a reason to not do the trials. Especially when so many are suffering from long covid (and the numbers are growing) 2/n
The reference to ‘more escape mutants’ is odd – what Paxlovid escape mutants are there right now? None of which I am aware, certainly none well established and widely circulating 3/n
So much of this is also relevant to the way people have approached the pandemic on twitter, and continue to do so as opinions become ever more polarized (and not always tethered to evidence - which makes them harder to discuss or debunk) nytimes.com/2022/06/15/opi… 1/n
I mean, just delete 'politically' from this, or replace it with 'scientifically' 2/n
I’ve had a number of quite sharp points of disagreement with @apsmunro but I hope we’ve each emerged from them with a better understanding of the science involved. In large part that’s down to discourse of the sort described in his post
I’d add to his post however, to note that this platform makes it hard to know where someone is coming from, and the experiences that are fueling their engagement.