As discussed on TWiV yesterday, B.1.1.7 isn't a "strain," which has demonstrably different biological properties, but is still considered a "variant." https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-697/ Any biological differences are theorized solely from the genome at this point. In the episode, Racaniello is at pains to point out that genomic differences alone don't imply biological differences in say transmission, and things li…
TWIW has kind of painted themselves into the corner by insisting that anything except biological evidence is irrelevant. The evidence for B.1.1.7 being more transmissive is quite solid, and seems to be getting more so as time goes on. But no matter how strong the statistical data is, it could never be good enough for them. So their policy recommendation ends up as "do nothing at all until there is 100% certain non-ci…
>Third, we modelled increased susceptibility among children (aged 0-19) by assuming they could be as susceptible as adults (aged 20+) to infection by VOC 202012/01 given exposure.
Basically they applied their own model on a lot of noise and data and assumed certain things. It's wild were we are at this point after almost 12 months...Can't wait for the retraction of this, but by then the the harm will be done, and no one will care about the fact that most of the papers on COVID were just bad, rushed and eventually retracted, but the harm and panic they pushed out are already there and we will never be able to get over some of the things that they claimed.