Private channel session 346

9 messages over 29m, 2020-09-01 – 2020-09-01.

A “conversation” here is an activity session — a run of messages with under 60 minutes of silence inside it. The channel had no native conversation boundaries.

2020-09-01 14:21 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.152

Not entirely unexpected given some of the common cold coronas. The classic literature (by Phil Minor) was suggesting multiple infection episodes within a year.
2020-09-01 14:36 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.152

But in this case it smells fishy. I don't believe there was enough SC2 around in Beijing for 6 out of their 273 patients even to have multiple exposures of radically different viruses, let alone actually become infected.
2020-09-01 14:40 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.152

Perhaps, but the official numbers from China are clearly large underestimates.
2020-09-01 14:41 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.152

I agree but even so. One of the 6 is 2 years old.
2020-09-01 14:42 Andrew Rambaut open PDF p.152

(but I don't know how I know that because I haven't seen the paper)
2020-09-01 14:42 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.152

Excellent educated guess.
2020-09-01 14:44 Edward C. Holmes open PDF p.152

There are two different things: (i) does the paper show reinfection; (ii) does it give a reliable frequency of reinfection because of sampling biases.
2020-09-01 14:49 Kristian G. Andersen open PDF p.152

Trying to get clarity on some of these questions - because both are important. I requested the raw data, so going totake a look at that first in case something got mixed up.If these six are actual my high risk (e.g. frontline workers assuming they're immune) than I can believe it. But ifthey're a random sampling, then it looks really unlikely - and yes, there's a baby in there too....
2020-09-01 14:50 Kristian G. Andersen open PDF p.152

Or toddler - whatever - little human (I don't know kids...)