A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
So I just don't know if it is more transmissible. But I really don't think it is much more transmissible than B.1.1.7.
-
That last point is really key - being 60%+ more transmissible than B.1.1.7 just seems nuts. Unless there's something funky going on with B.1.1.7's own transmission advantage (so it can be lower under certain circumstances whereB.1.617 would be higher - not impossible).
-
@Kristian Andersen Really good point. But what if P681R arrives first, then spread across the country, followed bylocal divergence. Do we know how clustered the diversity is? If you're getting pretty much _all_ diversity into the UK,that'd suggest "not very" - i.e., what I'm suggesting probably not very likely compared to the competing hypothesis ofsurge-driven spread.
-
Yeah - the modellers are so sure. But it just seems wrong to expect there is a simple mutational path to 3-fold more transmissibility over Wuhan (the figure mentioned today) and it didn't happen before now.
-
2021-05-13 14:28
Andrew Rambaut
I can't believe someone can say 300% more transmissible and not just pause.
-
Well, Oli and Nuno said 220% more transmissible for P.1, so there's that :wink:. But I agree - I think we have to be very very careful lot to over interpret the data, which is much too easy to do. But ifwe're saying that SARS-CoV-2 now has an R0 of ~8-9 and no longer ~2.5 then, well shit...
-
Somebody on Twitter got it. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.28.55 PM.png]
-
Angie asked me about writing a letter too - I think we should definitely do it... (with her and others)
-
@Kristian Andersen No - not more transmissible (IRRC) - just that it was transmitting faster (in the environment itwas in).