PHE have a mammoth task putting a number on it, and it’s often depressingly thankless. Here’s a great thread, explaining how methodology can change discovery rates of cases. A lesson in confounding factors.https://twitter.com/IsaacATFlorence/status/1400739270550298625?s=20 …
-
Show this thread
-
Andrew L. Croxford Retweeted Dr Ed
Why am I bent on this number?
@notdred makes the point. *We* can buy our way out. But the global consequences of a variant that is inherently 70% more transmissible & 2x more virulent than B117/α is frightening, and I can’t do another 5-10 years of COVID.https://twitter.com/notdred/status/1400863583374876675?s=20 …Andrew L. Croxford added,
Dr Ed @notdredI worry about data on B.1.617.2 (“delta” variant), something I didn’t say about any other variant. Not worried for where I live, 90%+ adults are vaccinated with mRNA. But in low-vax areas many may get sick & prior infection is not guaranteed protection. Keep vaccinating.Show this thread3 replies 6 retweets 62 likesShow this thread -
On a personal note: my career to date is investigating complex biological data sets, identify strengths & weaknesses and planning how to build on it. That’s the “biology career” mindset. I’m not peddling happiness for clicks. I can’t work out why I’ve been labelled an ‘optimist’.
2 replies 2 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
Contrary to claims, I’m not leaving ‘because of bad news’. The *massive* fever-pitch-esque overreaction and to the technical report & ignoring the key question (vax status) is what clinched it, immediately seized upon by the COVID high sparrows to trash the Gov/PHE response to δ.
3 replies 3 retweets 88 likesShow this thread -
The fact is, when I look at data, it’s likely that I see something very different to you. I may have different concerns and questions. I see something different to some virologists, immunologists, epi peeps. DEFINITELY different to the math dudes (love you guys). And that’s fine.
3 replies 3 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
Andrew L. Croxford Retweeted
A claim that a variant is 2x more virulent, or 70% more transmissible, or 4-fold less neutralised in vitro is complex. Clinical data is a tricky business. I have always said the modellers are up against it. There’s only so much you can normalise. https://twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/1396935250220134406?s=20 …
Andrew L. Croxford added,
This Tweet is unavailable.4 replies 8 retweets 74 likesShow this thread -
Andrew L. Croxford Retweeted Andrew L. Croxford
Few people grasp the details of vaccine biology & can't interpret neutralisation/immunogenicity data. Simply put, in vitro is painting a gloomier picture then real world VE data. PRNTs are confusing and shouldn’t be wielded to make people feel unsafe.https://twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/1398705136634142722?s=20 …
Andrew L. Croxford added,
Andrew L. Croxford @andrew_croxfordI’m despairing at how vaccine convalescent serum neutralization data is confusing people & creating post-vaccination disappointment in those who received the AZ vaccine, to the point of questioning having the second dose. Some seem to feel like they’ve been screwed. They haven’t.Show this thread3 replies 12 retweets 103 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @andrew_croxford
I hate this variant more than any other. But seems like the least worse scenario is if reduced nAb to one dose AZ has a bigger share in producing detectable cases, no? I'm not sure people understand the alternative explanation is kinda terrifying.
4 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yeah I hope we land on the lower end, a little too scary to ponder the alternative. What Andrew is outlining with how the "baseline" has shifted differentially (since no immune evasion with b117) plus the new Pfizer Lancet paper with reduced nAb both move R lower.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.