Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.722 [SLACK_000936] · slack_pm:msg:07580

Date: 2021-04-21 08:38
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Natural origin / zoonotic spillover

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

For the animal epizootic - I agree that we should see violations of tree structure if new mutations kept cropping upand spilling over from an animal reservoir. Thing is though, looking at the mink example from Denmark, the virus was flowing freely between the two hosts, making it impossible to figure out what was mink derived and what was human. We saw convergent evolution between DK and NL mink, so that made us believe mutations fixed in the mink population - so I'm not convinced we can _rule out_ a potential animal reservoir for e.g., B.1.1.7? Clearly, almost all(>99.99%) new B.1.1.7 infections are caused by human-to-human, but can we rule out that there isn't also apersistent non-human reservoir too? Could be small and limited, and of course, the virus would move from humans into that reservoir too.I agree, definitely not as likely as the alternative hypothesis, but this thing keeps surprising me, so I hate rulingthings out...

In context

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

2021-04-21 08:19 Andrew Rambaut open

All B.1.1.7 seems to be neatly derived from the early kent virus
2021-04-21 08:19 Andrew Rambaut open

(apart from the recombinants)
2021-04-21 08:20 Andrew Rambaut open

However, if DRASTIC is going down this route (that B.1.1.7 was actually constructed) they are just revealing themselves to be the nutters they are to the people who have been taking them seriously.
2021-04-21 08:21 Andrew Rambaut open

Let them dig their hole. Give them a spade
2021-04-21 08:38 Kristian G. Andersen

For the animal epizootic - I agree that we should see violations of tree structure if new mutations kept cropping upand spilling over from an animal reservoir. Thing is though, looking at the mink example from Denmark, the virus was flowing freely between the two hosts, making it impossible to figure out what was mink derived and what was human. We saw convergent evolution between DK and NL mink, so that made us believe mutations fixed in the mink population - so I'm not convinced we can _rule out_ a potential animal reservoir for e.g., B.1.1.7? Clearly, almost all(>99.99%) new B.1.1.7 infections are caused by human-to-human, but can we rule out that there isn't also apersistent non-human reservoir too? Could be small and limited, and of course, the virus would move from humans into that reservoir too.I agree, definitely not as likely as the alternative hypothesis, but this thing keeps surprising me, so I hate rulingthings out...
2021-04-21 08:42 Andrew Rambaut open

So much convergence and parallel mutations and spike mutational 'bursts' now I think we have to move beyond trying to find a special explanation for B.1.1.7
2021-04-21 08:43 Kristian G. Andersen open

True. SLACK_000937
2021-04-21 08:43 Robert F. Garry open

Angie fights back https:/www.nature.con/articles/s41591-021-01314-9
2021-04-21 08:43 Robert F. Garry open

Concerted attack on AR by DRASTIC - Yuri claims he's the victim.

Full conversation →