Categories Society
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Modellers believe that spreading out our limited supply of vaccine as single doses for 3 months will save up to 6000 lives. One concern though is whether single doses might lead to 'vaccine resistance' through virus mutation. (1)
If we assume that over the next 12 weeks 12-20 million people get one dose of a vaccine and are told or believe it gives 90% protection what % will actually go for a second jab? We might assume second dose coverage is at best 70%. (2)
That means between 4 and 6.7 million people might have fading protection. Will the risk of creating a vaccine resistant mutant in this group of people, which could spread rapidly to 7 billion people around the world, outweigh the benefits of 6000 deaths prevented. (3)
I was initially reassured by a paper sent to me by an eminent virologist. https://t.co/UyTQZ0CFsW (4)
Essentially vaccine resistance is rare compared with drug resistance, first because multiple mutations are needed unlike for drugs, and second because vaccines tend to keep pathogens from ever achieving large population sizes within hosts. (5)
If we assume that over the next 12 weeks 12-20 million people get one dose of a vaccine and are told or believe it gives 90% protection what % will actually go for a second jab? We might assume second dose coverage is at best 70%. (2)
That means between 4 and 6.7 million people might have fading protection. Will the risk of creating a vaccine resistant mutant in this group of people, which could spread rapidly to 7 billion people around the world, outweigh the benefits of 6000 deaths prevented. (3)
I was initially reassured by a paper sent to me by an eminent virologist. https://t.co/UyTQZ0CFsW (4)
Essentially vaccine resistance is rare compared with drug resistance, first because multiple mutations are needed unlike for drugs, and second because vaccines tend to keep pathogens from ever achieving large population sizes within hosts. (5)
I want to add an addendum to this thread from the other day to show why publishing an n=1 is so bad. It's because I can likely identify and put a name to this student.
(I'm not going to do that here but I am going to show you how easy it is.)
To do that, let's talk about the IPEDS data set. IPEDS is a US database that contains a range of information about US universities, such as enrollment, test scores, graduation rates, etc.
One notable data table shows graduated students by major and ethnicity.
(FYI, here is the IPEDS data: https://t.co/K4OwsyLLsE It's an open database so you can explore at your leisure.)
Back to the "Completions" table which shows ethnicity by major. This happens to line up with the n=1 from the offending article which identified a student by their ethnicity and major.
Sorry, the n=1 was year in school and ethnicity but I've now used the IPEDS data to find out their major. Linking datasets on minority populations is very very powerful.
(I'm not going to do that here but I am going to show you how easy it is.)
I'm angry at everything right now, including the new the latest problematic article from C&RL.
— Dr. Kristin Briney (@KristinBriney) January 6, 2021
So I think it's time we talked about C&RL's history of publishing identifying information in articles.
(Yes, @LibSkrat I'm finally telling this story)https://t.co/JPCks3tohr
To do that, let's talk about the IPEDS data set. IPEDS is a US database that contains a range of information about US universities, such as enrollment, test scores, graduation rates, etc.
One notable data table shows graduated students by major and ethnicity.
(FYI, here is the IPEDS data: https://t.co/K4OwsyLLsE It's an open database so you can explore at your leisure.)
Back to the "Completions" table which shows ethnicity by major. This happens to line up with the n=1 from the offending article which identified a student by their ethnicity and major.
Sorry, the n=1 was year in school and ethnicity but I've now used the IPEDS data to find out their major. Linking datasets on minority populations is very very powerful.
1/ Some people are looking at this map and saying: "it must have come from Europe". Here are a few reasons why that is unlikely.
2/ Though B.1.1.7 was especially prominent in Kent, the 2nd sequence ever sequenced was found in London, a day after the 1st. Due to superspreading it isn't possible to pinpoint for sure whether it originated in Kent or London. (If London, there's no argument for the continent).
3/ And suppose we did believe the new variant was introduced from abroad. Would we expect it to be introduced by sea or air? Far more arrivals to the UK in August/September occurred by air compared to sea.
4/ Genetic evidence. Suppose this highly transmissible variant had arisen in some other country, and made its way through France to the UK. It would also have left lots of descendants in Europe. We can look at a genetic tree of sequences and see that that is not the case.
5/ The grey/orange sequences here are UK sequences and the others are from an array of other countries. Specifically I've highlighted a lineage in Denmark which represents spread from a single introduction to Denmark, ultimately from the UK.
The spread of B.1.1.7 through England over November and December, with London inset at top-right. pic.twitter.com/fVfL0xijcx
— Theo Sanderson (@theosanderson) January 8, 2021
2/ Though B.1.1.7 was especially prominent in Kent, the 2nd sequence ever sequenced was found in London, a day after the 1st. Due to superspreading it isn't possible to pinpoint for sure whether it originated in Kent or London. (If London, there's no argument for the continent).
3/ And suppose we did believe the new variant was introduced from abroad. Would we expect it to be introduced by sea or air? Far more arrivals to the UK in August/September occurred by air compared to sea.
4/ Genetic evidence. Suppose this highly transmissible variant had arisen in some other country, and made its way through France to the UK. It would also have left lots of descendants in Europe. We can look at a genetic tree of sequences and see that that is not the case.
5/ The grey/orange sequences here are UK sequences and the others are from an array of other countries. Specifically I've highlighted a lineage in Denmark which represents spread from a single introduction to Denmark, ultimately from the UK.
This is a good thread, and I am not criticizing it in saying my experience is a bit different, in large part because I'm aware my experience is the anomalous one. :)
That said, there are reasons for this: some are good, some aren't, and by their nature they point to alternatives
The two most critical points of this are as follows:
* This problem mirrors fiction
* There is a structural information load issue at work
Let's dive in.
Fictional protagonists are usually reactive. Antagonists (villains!) drive events and push for change, and protagonists stop them. This is not universally true, but it's so common as so be expected. It's one of the reasons playing villains is fun for reasons other than EEEVIL.
One of the easiest ways to address this in play is with a nominal villains/actual heroes model, which is to say, games of rebels and revolutionaries. This is a popular, very playable model that works in many games.
But it's not quite enough.
If that was all there was to it, then every star wars game would be an example of player driven agendas. But, in practice, Star Wars games tend to be as reactive as anything else, even though the agenda is nominally proactive. Why is that?
That said, there are reasons for this: some are good, some aren't, and by their nature they point to alternatives
I had a bit of a realization about tabletop RPGs recently, and I wanna float it by all ya'll in an overly long thread, because I think it's an interesting problem that stretches to both the culture and design within TTRPGs.
— Ruby Soleil-Raine (@IronsparkSyris) January 26, 2021
Player characters are way too reactive.
The two most critical points of this are as follows:
* This problem mirrors fiction
* There is a structural information load issue at work
Let's dive in.
Fictional protagonists are usually reactive. Antagonists (villains!) drive events and push for change, and protagonists stop them. This is not universally true, but it's so common as so be expected. It's one of the reasons playing villains is fun for reasons other than EEEVIL.
One of the easiest ways to address this in play is with a nominal villains/actual heroes model, which is to say, games of rebels and revolutionaries. This is a popular, very playable model that works in many games.
But it's not quite enough.
If that was all there was to it, then every star wars game would be an example of player driven agendas. But, in practice, Star Wars games tend to be as reactive as anything else, even though the agenda is nominally proactive. Why is that?
