The Los Angeles Times earned a Twitter moments earlier today for this article on a Covid variant currently spreading around California that they called “increasingly dangerous” and “the devil is here”:
TRIPLE WORRISOME—Data says the new variant that is now dominant strain in California:
?spreads FASTER
?evades antibodies from #COVID19 vaccines or prior infection
?causes more severe illness.
➡️Scientist says “the devil is here” #B1427 / #B1429? https://t.co/p8hWTkBEMD pic.twitter.com/nhozB3VTc3
— Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) February 23, 2021
“There’s a problem” with the article, however. You see, “there isn’t even a preprint published and we’re watching dramatic descent in cases, hospitalization and deaths despite its high frequency”:
There's a problem with labelling the California variant (B.1.427/B.1.429) "increasingly dangerous" when there isn't even a preprint published and we're watching dramatic descent in cases, hospitalization and deaths despite its high frequencyhttps://t.co/TVuWQWdn2o
— Eric Topol (@EricTopol) February 23, 2021
Here’s the data which “doesn’t seem consistent with their doom and gloom headlines”:
The article says California already has 50% of cases coming from this new varient, but look at what is happening to there numbers.
That doesn't seem consistent with their doom and gloom headlines. https://t.co/Hcp1VCVu9h pic.twitter.com/OShw6Xkiwc
— Mark Frassetto (@MarkFrassetto) February 24, 2021
Professor Francois Balloux from the University of London Genetics Institue called the article, “irresponsible nonsense”:
This article is irresponsible nonsense. The number of inaccuracies and errors are staggering, and the language utterly inadequate. The entire narrative is in variance with all the evidence available in the public domain at this stage.
1/ https://t.co/RNV38qiK8F— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) February 24, 2021
More here in this thread:
I appreciate that everyone, everywhere wants their private #SARSCoV2 variant, scarier and nastier than all others, to blame for their woes. Though, I'm sorry California, despite your track record as trailblazers, your variant (B.1.427/B.1.429) doesn't seem to make the cut.
2/— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) February 24, 2021
Addendum:
B.1.427/B.1.429 do not qualify as 'lineages of concern'. They has been around a while and while their highest frequency is in the US (California for B.1.429), They are not exceptional in their distribution, or recent increase in frequency.
3/https://t.co/EQ9w8kVuKu pic.twitter.com/z6tddGN9eY— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) February 24, 2021
Lineages can reach high frequencies locally without them being intrinsically more transmissible. Examples include B.1.177, which was dominant in the UK in the summer of 2020, before being replaced by B.1.1.7, or B.1.1.50, which is dominant in Palestine.
4/https://t.co/DPOnXEv3mc pic.twitter.com/YlkKZ15f8D— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) February 24, 2021
There is no evidence from 'neutralisation assays' that B.1.427/B.1.429 may be more prone to cause reinfection or reduce efficacy of current vaccines.
5/https://t.co/kPuFZKMaOy— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) February 24, 2021
B.1.427/B.1.429 lineages cary none of the mutations/deletions that have been flagged in 'variants of concern' (i.e. Spike 69/70deletion, N501Y, K417N/T, E484K or NSP6 106-108 deletion).
6/— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) February 24, 2021
B.1.427/B.1.429 are characterised by the L452R spike mutation, which seems of fairly minor concern at this stage. It is not uncommon in various lineages and was first observed in in a B.1.39 strain in Denmark in March 2020.
7/— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) February 24, 2021
#SARSCoV2 acquires ~25 mutations/year in its genome. As such, there are now tens of thousands of 'definable lineages'. A few are of concern because they transmit better and/or partly escape immunisation. It is essential that we identify, and focus on, those that really matter.
8/— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) February 24, 2021
Over to you, LA Times.
***
