A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
See waste-water in Europe in 2019
-
The 2-3% serological studies were specifically for SARS-like CoVs, with good baselines - so they might well be accurate. But yeah, getting a positive hit on a CoV serological assay - without controlling very closely for background- you can get anything, anywhere.
-
Andrew - since you have a keen eye. Do you know which 'mystery' sequences and viruses Jesse is talking about? I'm quite confused. I think maybe he means these? https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1373310963680571397?s=20 Clearly they must be fragments they have managed to successfully sequence, as they mention in the Nature addendum - so absolutely no mystery. Am I missing something?
-
I was assuming it was those. Some RdRp PCR products I assume
-
2021-03-20 09:44
Robert F. Garry
Good to be discussing these points ahead of a likely burst of reporting with the relaese of the WHO report! I already have several reporters promising to call.
-
... and then this slide showing that they have managed to get some spike sequences too? Clearly very distant. [shared file(s): EvVevMrXcAA_GmP.jpeg]
-
Also this tree, but I suspect that the same I just linked to, and yes, probably RdRp. Same IDs, so clearly the same. And clearly, they don't have the full genomes (because, well, bloody hard to do) [shared file(s):Ew35lxKU8AAbXdw.png]
-
@Andrew Rambaut points well taken re cross-reactivity - even the best seroassays are not 100% - the paper we referenced in PO1 and the one Daszak is talking about did look for cross-rxty with other covs. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12250-018-0012-7 cloned most of the known human covs and tested thoseas well as follow-up western blotting. my take is at least some sarbecovirus reactivity possible.
-
...and the cdc paper - which i cant find now - showing seroreactivty to SC2 pre-pandemic was crap.