Chat message

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2020-08-30 22:51 Andrew Rambaut open
   I guess they are different given '_phylogenic'._
2. 2020-08-30 22:51 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Yup, different genomes so not relapse
3. 2020-08-30 22:51 Andrew Rambaut open
   How are the 273 patients selected. It seems implausible that in most parts of the world 6 out of 273 would even beexposed twice let alone infected.
4. 2020-08-30 22:51 Robert F. Garry open
   Yes - jarring if it holds up. Perhaps not surprising - SOME people get colds over and over again [repertoire holes?] and we know immunity to CoVs is rather short-lived at least in some people. I'd really want to see sequence data inboth episodes for each patient. Too many people think they had COVID in November to January but really did not. Then there is the whole false-positive PCR thing - so a Ct in the high 30s or 40 might not be real per the NYT a few days ago. Yes - sequence confirmed in the first episode or may not be real. I'm also concerned about the mention ofsecondary" humoral responses. This is not evidence of reinfection. It seems to me that all of the humoral responsesto SARS-CoV-2 appear to be secondary (likely due to previous seasonal exposures). In the COVID patients we've looked at IgG comes up at the same time as IgM and IgA, like a secondary response. Several other papers show the same thing. Also what are the neut titers? If they are low as seems typical they might well not be protective. Also Iagree with Andrew - some weird selection bias?
5. 2020-08-30 22:51 Andrew Rambaut
   Is the paper pre-printed?

Full conversation →