Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, the preprint ( https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid19/reports/uk-novel-vari... ) from the UK has this: >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 a…
And a paper is retracted only in extreme cases such as gross scientific malpractice such as fraud. Unless you have some info that you refused to share, I see no coherent and rational reason to indicate any of these papers should be retracted. Having strong emotionally-driven positions on a subject is not a reason to demand a paper should be retracted.