> “It was quite unusual. Up to that point, the virus had been characterised by having a relatively slow mutational rate, maybe two variations a month. Suddenly out of nowhere we’ve got this large cluster featuring mutations that were significantly different to what we’d looked at before.”
This is just completely untrue. The mutation rate, as far as I'm aware, is not changed. We've been tracking mutations to the virus since its emergence, and there are literally thousands of strains:
Perhaps public health in the UK was not tracking mutations, but suddenly discovering that a situation exists is not prima facie evidence of a crisis. The circumstance here seems to be that the people involved in this particular project decided to start looking for things, and as is usual when you start looking for things in science, you find things. This is amplified by the fact that S-gene dropout made them more aware of this particular strain than most, since it mucked up their PCR tests.
(Edit: also, you can see that strains rising/falling to/from local dominance has been seen repeatedly throughout 2020. This, in itself, is not an exceptional finding, despite the article's attempt to paint it as such. B.1.1.7 does seem to be selectively advantaged in a more general way, but again, that's not prima facie evidence of a crisis. Just because a strain has a selective advantage over other strains does not mean that the strain is more dangerous -- and so far, all claims to this extent have been quite weak. For example, the claims that B.1.1.7 are more lethal have been called into question with later, better research. [1])
Well, typically first there is a policy and then scientists have to come up with theories to support it. Only if it is not possible, policy changes to meet science somewhere in the middle.
As I understand it, the UK was doing more tracking of Covid-19 mutations than pretty much everyone else on the planet, which is exactly why this stood out.
> In the past year, more than 360,000 SARS-CoV-2 genomes have been sequenced and stored on GISAID, a non-profit online database for sharing viral genomes. Geographic distribution of the sequences on GISAID is broad, covering more than 140 countries. But most countries have uploaded only a small number of sequences. Two exceptions are the United Kingdom and Denmark, which respectively account for 45% and 7% of SARS-CoV-2 genomes on the database.[1]
This is from an article published in January this year. The UK had sequenced and shared 45% of the sequences in the GISAID database at that point in time. Which is a lot.
I am in the U.K. I will tell you this. There never was a pandemic in this country. The amount of deaths during this scamdemic is actually a little less than the year before.
The hospitals are empty, not overwhelmed . There are no hearses on the streets, the testing centres are empty. Nobody knows anybody sick never mind DEAD. When you switch off the tel a lie vision you realize the co called virus just goes away. People have wised up to this scam now and are not complying with the New World Order agenda.
If there was a REAL pandemic you would not have people arguing about weather there is a pandemic or NOT.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 22.6 ms ] threadThis is just completely untrue. The mutation rate, as far as I'm aware, is not changed. We've been tracking mutations to the virus since its emergence, and there are literally thousands of strains:
https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global
Perhaps public health in the UK was not tracking mutations, but suddenly discovering that a situation exists is not prima facie evidence of a crisis. The circumstance here seems to be that the people involved in this particular project decided to start looking for things, and as is usual when you start looking for things in science, you find things. This is amplified by the fact that S-gene dropout made them more aware of this particular strain than most, since it mucked up their PCR tests.
(Edit: also, you can see that strains rising/falling to/from local dominance has been seen repeatedly throughout 2020. This, in itself, is not an exceptional finding, despite the article's attempt to paint it as such. B.1.1.7 does seem to be selectively advantaged in a more general way, but again, that's not prima facie evidence of a crisis. Just because a strain has a selective advantage over other strains does not mean that the strain is more dangerous -- and so far, all claims to this extent have been quite weak. For example, the claims that B.1.1.7 are more lethal have been called into question with later, better research. [1])
[1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/92057
[0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-u-k-became-world-leader...
This is from an article published in January this year. The UK had sequenced and shared 45% of the sequences in the GISAID database at that point in time. Which is a lot.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00065-4
https://covariants.org/per-country
B.1.1.7 is the strain referred to here as 20I/501Y.V1
If there was a REAL pandemic you would not have people arguing about weather there is a pandemic or NOT.
https://picc.io/p/tq2sFHU.png