Slack / Private Message Drop — page 799

[Andrew Rambaut] [thread - ID: 2021-05-13 14:14:35] @Kristian Andersen Exponential growth is a killer [2021-05-13 14:16:40] [Andrew Rambaut] [thread - ID: 2021-05-13 14:14:35] @Kristian Andersen So if these viruses have been lurking in the countryside for months, why do they all arrive in Mumbai at the same time. [2021-05-13 14:17:43] [Andrew Rambaut] [thread - ID: 2021-05-13 14:14:35] @Kristian Andersen Seems likely to be huge mass gatherings (which India does well I hear) amplifying many variants [2021-05-13 14:18:27] [Andrew Rambaut] 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. [2021-05-13 14:19:49] [Kristian Andersen] 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 where B.1.617 would be higher - not impossible). [2021-05-13 14:22:14] [Kristian Andersen] [thread - ID: 2021-05-13 14:14:35] @Kristian Andersen Really good point. But what if P681R arrives first, then spread across the country, followed by local 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 of surge-driven spread. [2021-05-13 14:28:04] [Andrew Rambaut] 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 14:28:39] [Andrew Rambaut] I can't believe someone can say 300% more transmissible and not just pause. [2021-05-13 14:30:47] [Kristian Andersen] [thread - ID: 2021-05-13 14:30:47] 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 if we're saying that SARS-CoV-2 now has an R0 of ~8-9 and no longer ~2.5 then, well shit... [2021-05-13 14:32:17] [Kristian Andersen] Somebody on Twitter got it. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.28.55 PM.png]