The release notes of the latest Twitter update do not bode well for the future of the platform.
I am choosing #Mastodon as a backup plan, and not Substack or Instagram, because I wasn't on Twitter to preach, but for discussions. #TwitterMigration
A few tips to join Mastodon 🧵
1️⃣ Use fedifinder.glitch.me to find the Mastodon accounts of people you follow and are followed by on Twitter. It scans their bios for mentions of Mastodon accounts.
You will also see on which servers people are, which is useful to chose one.
2️⃣ Directly go to the server of your choice to sign up, or look for one on joinmastodon.org/servers or on the Mastodon app.
Don't overthink this server choice, it matters less than you may fear: you can follow people across servers. You won't be stuck in a silo.
3️⃣ Once sign-up is successful, take the time to fill in details such as your name, profile picture, bio, links (which can be verified ✅).
Write an introductory post with the #introduction hashtag.
In other words, don't start following people as the equivalent of a Twitter egg!
4️⃣ Go to Preferences, Import and Export, Import, and upload the csv file of account names that you downloaded on step 1️⃣. And voilà!, you are already following a lot of familiar faces, probably across servers, i.e. out of your "silo".
5️⃣ Add your full Mastodon account (@handle@instance) to your Twitter bio, so that others can find you like you did in step 1️⃣.
6️⃣ There are a few differences between Mastodon and Twitter, notably post visibility and how DMs look like. Take a few minutes to familiarize yourself by reading tips like blog.djnavarro.net/posts/2022-11-…
7️⃣ Consider chipping in to help run the server you have joined.
You are now ready to take flight if things turn bad here -- or to start interacting on Mastodon right now, because why not! #TwitterMigration
Admittedly, setting up an account on Mastodon may sound daunting...! But it's worth the effort.
And importantly, Mastodon is anything but siloed: you can follow / be followed by people on other servers ⏬
It is time to share our findings about a study by @jbloom_lab that had a lot of echo in 2021.
TL;DR: The sequences that J Bloom recovered were not from the earliest cases, but from late January 2020. He had the information, deleted it during his analysis, then ignored it.▫️1/8
In June 2021, Jesse Bloom announced in a Twitter thread and in a preprint having recovered sequences from early in the epidemic. His description and the media coverage (including his press release) led people to think that some sequences were from the earliest cases. ▫️2/8
Yet, via a press conference in July 2021, the Chinese authors, Wang et al., specified that the sequences were not that early: they had been collected on 30 Jan 2020. J Bloom noted it in his article, but presented it as a contradiction. ▫️3/8
There were live bats in Wuhan, both inside and outside of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but neither seem relevant to the origin of the pandemic. ▫️1/10🧵
Zeynep has been repeating the odd and false claim that Wuhan's only bats were in labs. There are bats in Wuhan! And if @zeynep had cared to just properly read what she cites (see QT), she'd have realized she was the one making up the claim. ▫️2/
As shown in the previous tweet, bats within Wuhan are mostly Myotis and Pipistrellus, unlikely to carry sarbecoviruses. Rhinolophus bats are occasionally found within Wuhan (h/t @mikeydoubled), but also nearby and then with sarbecoviruses ▫️3/
Proponents of a lab origin of the Covid-19 pandemic often claim that circumstantial evidence is in favor of their hypothesis... while ignoring key circumstantial evidence *against* it.
1⃣ We now know that SARS-CoV-2 was already spreading in Wuhan in December 2019. Some lab leakers claim that WIV scientists were infected and hospitalized in November 2019. This should have caused alarm. And yet, Shi Zhengli was at a meeting in Singapore in December 2019. ▫️2/
Some could argue that they did not know yet that the virus was spreading in Wuhan, as the first cases were detected later in the month.
Early in January 2020, Shi's group at WIV had sequenced SARS-CoV-2, and knew that there were human cases in hospitals in Wuhan. And yet... ▫️3/
[a not-so-niche thread]
In September 2021, a leaked research proposal was made public. Called "Defuse" and submitted to DARPA, it was not funded.
Some saw it as a "blueprint for SARS-CoV-2". Via FOIA, I obtained drafts of this proposal. It was not a blueprint; here's why. ▫️1/9
The Defuse proposal contained a contentious paragraph, in which "cleavage site" and "furin" were mentioned. The text was unclear enough for people to understand it the way they wanted, like in a Rorschach test. But the drafts are clearer. ▫️2/9
1⃣ As we have been told before, the idea behind this paragraph came from the University of North Carolina (UNC) collaborator on the proposal, and not from the Wuhan team. ▫️3/9
Un fil 🧵 pour partager des informations sur BA.2.86, un nouveau variant de SARS-CoV-2.
Nouveau venu dans la grande famille Omicron, BA.2.86 est un cousin lointain des variants XBB* qui étaient devenus majoritaires en 2023 ▫️1/
Les mutations portées par BA.2.86 (et comme son nom indique) suggèrent qu’il est un descendant de BA.2, variant de la famille Omicron qui a causé un rebond de cas début 2022 ▫️2/
(🖼️ @nicolasberrod / Le Parisien, modifiée)
Mais BA.2.86 a accumulé de nombreuses mutations par rapport à BA.2, et on n’a pas encore détecté d’intermédiaire, ce qui laisse penser qu’il a pu émerger suite à une infection longue durée (qui laisse le temps aux virus pour accumuler des mutations) ▫️3/
For months, DRASTIC and Paris group lab leak activists demanded information on a viral isolate from Wuhan, WIV6, insinuating that it could be a hidden progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.
TL;DR Not only it was not a coronavirus, but the information was public. ▫️1/8
A central tenet of the lab leak hypothesis is the idea that Shi Zhengli, of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), is hiding key data.
She already said her lab did not have a virus closer to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13, but for lab leakers, this is not enough: they want proof. ▫️2/8
Using public data, DRASTIC members worked to reconstruct WIV databases, hoping to find evidence in anomalous patterns.
They did so for WIV’s viral isolates, labeled WIV1, WIV2, etc. ▫️3/8