Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dr Mike Yeadon's avatar

I will almost certainly be being dumb here, but:

1. How confident can we be about the variants claim? Not “do they really exist as separate, infective species”, but “in this population of people, some of whom get a positive PCR test, how confident are we that they’ve really got variant X & not Y?” I don’t think the PCR tests have been edited such that positive results are only possible if a particular variant is present. They’re surely relying on a 3rd party running full sequencing on a proportion of samples. I’m not sure every country can do this. The greatest capacity for this expertise is in UK, so it may even be the case that public health depts ‘contract out’ to labs in UK that sequencing.

2. In order to determine a case rate, don’t we need to know the number of tests run as well as the conditions of how the tests are run? Yet we rarely see “positive test results per 10,000 tests” or similar or “operational false positive rate was shown to be <0.1%”. I know we’ve come to depend upon the Our World In Data etc, but how many people know that the operators of such databases are the perpetrators themselves? For example, one of the two most-used global databases is Johns Hopkins University, who are lavishly funded by you know who philanthropaths.

Not that any of this is a surprise, I’m outing myself as a total non-believer in the reliability of these data series. They might be being made up as far as I’m concerned!

Thank you, Gato, for your indefatigable work. In asking the above, to be clear, I am not gratuitously throwing doubt on your hypothesis-making. 🤗

DWB's avatar

Could the difference be because Portugal has BA.5.1 while Spain does not? Take a look here: https://outbreak.info/situation-reports?pango=BA.5.1&selected=PRT&loc=PRT&loc=ESP&overlay=false

Same with South Africa - they had BA.5 but not BA.5.1 like Portugal.

On that same site you can compare BA.5 and BA.5.1. One of the mutations that is different regards: L37F

This study says L37F is associated with more severe outcomes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33179934/

I don't know if that mutation is worse for vaccinated, or bad for everyone.

205 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?