A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
We don't see N501Y in our chronic patient - big difference, no treatment in that person.
-
@Andrew Rambaut - question here, as I see this coming up in many many news articles. Do folks understand that there are two separate concerns here? (1) Increased transmission, possibly due to N501Y, and (2) Concerns about 'immunity' due to the mutations and deletions on the same haplotype? I see many people commenting that "we shouldn't expect SARS-CoV-2 to evolve towards immune evasion", but the problem here is that what we're seeing here isn't 'normal' SARS-CoV-2 evolution - it's a different process and it may _specifically_ be related to immune evasion. Can't assume our normal priors are appropriate here.
-
I have brought this up a few times but I still don't think people get it.
-
I am leaving it until the lab work is done.
-
2020-12-20 13:27
Kristian G. Andersen
Yeah, same here - until I see data, no point in speculating, however, let's not trust our priors 100%
-
Do you know if Wendy is going to be able to test neutralization from vaccinees in addition to convalescent patients?
-
Worse case would if it had selected for immune evasion, and was more transmissible, and ended up at high frequency, which could make vaccines less efficient and require a higher coverage for the higher R.
-
@Kristian Andersen Yes. Convelescent plasma from natural infections and vaccinees will be tested.
-
Yup - exactly. Under a 'normal' evolution scenario I'd say that would be extremely unlikely - however, in this particular case, I'm not so sure.