Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. André Hampshire's avatar

    If anything, this exchange illustrates the problem: judgments are being made on stylistic impressions (“this sounds like AI”) rather than…

  2. Ted Bach's avatar

    The existential threat is not to higher-ed as such but a particular (and now common) higher-ed business model: the one…

  3. Steven Hales's avatar
  4. Collin Lucken's avatar
  5. André Hampshire's avatar

    Sagar’s claim that LLMs pose an “existential threat” to universities rests on a set of conflations that do not survive…

  6. Edwin Fruehwald's avatar

    Generative AI has the potential to do catastrophic harm to higher education. This is because learning is a biological process…

  7. Anonymous1's avatar

    When the problem of AI-based papers started a few years ago, I immediately switched to in-class essay exams and told…

On the new variant of the coronavirus in the UK that is allegedly more transmissible

From the BBC's science correspondent:

There have been changes to the spike protein – this is the key the virus uses to unlock the doorway to our body's cells.

One mutation called N501Y alters the most important part of the spike, known as the "receptor-binding domain".

This is where the spike makes first contact with the surface of our body's cells. Any changes that make it easier for the virus to get inside are likely to give it an edge.

"It looks and smells like an important adaptation," said Prof Loman.

The other mutation – a H69/V70 deletion, in which a small part of the spike is removed – has emerged several times before, including famously in infected mink.

Work by Prof Ravi Gupta at the University of Cambridge has suggested this mutation increases infectivity two-fold in lab experiments.

Prof Gupta told me: "It is rapidly increasing, that's what's worried government, we are worried, most scientists are worried."

From Science Magazine:

In a press conference on Saturday, Chief Science Adviser Patrick Vallance said B.1.1.7 [the new variant], which first appeared in a virus isolated on 20 September, accounted for about 26% of cases in mid-November. “By the week commencing the ninth of December, these figures were much higher,” he said. “So, in London, over 60% of all the cases were the new variant.” Johnson added that the slew of mutations may have increased the virus’ transmissibility by 70%.

Christian Drosten, a virologist at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, says that was premature. “There are too many unknowns to say something like that,” he says. For one thing, the rapid spread of B.1.1.7 might be down to chance. Scientists previously worried that a variant that spread rapidly from Spain to the rest of Europe—confusingly called B.1.177—might be more transmissible, but today they think it is not; it just happened to be carried all over Europe by travelers who spent their holidays in Spain. Something similar might be happening with B.1.1.7, says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Georgetown University. Drosten notes that the new mutant also carries a deletion in another viral gene, ORF8, that previous studies suggest might reduce the virus’ ability to spread.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 responses to “On the new variant of the coronavirus in the UK that is allegedly more transmissible”

  1. I cannot agree with Christian Drosten that Our Prime Minister’s 19th December announcement was premature.
    When Johnson (the P.M.) gave the “up to 70% increased infectivity” for the new variant, there was already agreement among a good few virologists and epidemiologists about this, an agreement which has evidently grown in the last couple of days.
    This new variant was known about from early October. From late November on there were parts of the UK in which infection rates were rising rapidly despite measures being taken which had been expected to keep them down. At first the data connecting rising infection rates to the new variant was correlational(strongly so). And then it came to be shown that the connection was causal.

    Never mind for a moment about exactly what was known about the variant and when. Increasing localized infection rates in areas which already had restrictions in place should itself have been a cause for concern more than two weeks ago, even it if couldn't yet be explained.
    Dec11th: The Health Secretary told Parliament of the new virus strain, and reported on rising infection rates in some places.
    14th: The Shadow Health Secretary invited the Health Secretary to agree that plans for Xmas needed to be reviewed.
    15th: Two leading British medical journals published a joint editorial warning there would be "another major error that will cost many lives" unless the government changed its plans for Xmas.
    16th: The leader of the opposition (Keir Starmer) asks the PM about reviewing Xmas plans. The Prime Minister jeers, and mocks him. It was another 3 days before he was forced to agree with him.
    The new variant is, of course, a serious concern. But any Brit must also be concerned about the fact that we have a Prime Minister whose sole objective is to remain personally popular, and whose technique for dealing with problems is to let them run out of control. He is certainly not one for premature decisions.

  2. I certainly don't think it was premature to announce more restrictive measures on 19th December, considering the scale and rapidity of the growth of infections in the south of England. But Drosten was suggesting that it was premature to conclude on the available evidence that the new variant was responsible for the rising figures, which is a different question.

  3. I agree there are 2 questions. Hence my 'Never mind … '
    Still, I don't think Johnson's "the slew of mutations may have increased the virus’ transmissibility by 70%" was premature. The context was one in which he'd said "it _appears_ that this new variant is passed on significantly more easily" and he cited Nervtag for the "may be up to 70%", without saying they'd said the virus was (as you put it) "responsible" .. .

    [I can hardly believe I'm defending this man for what he said, thinking as I do that it is not his habit to speak the truth.]

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

Designed with WordPress