The Science. It's not vaccine hesitancy. It's was imported by travel but it is the transmissibility that matters.

Every pandemic. ever has been spread by people moving around and passing it from person to person.

People have always travelled and even though we travel more now, the pandemic would have been what it is now, even in the past and the spread would have been nearly as fast.

Infections form chains. Someone could have travelled from India to Turkey, brsuhed someone on a bus, who travelled to Germany to meet family and sat next to an English engineer there on a contract and about to travel home before quarantine. He lives in Burnley and met a friend of Indian origin for a drink outside a pub.

In other words it doe not follow that the Indian variant was introduced to Britain by someone from the Indian continent who had travelled here directly.

I think we are seeing that more and more with the main players saying we need to wait. They are also surge testing and vaccinating in Bedford, Burnley, Hounslow, Kirklees, Leicester and North Tyneside, while the Scottish government is doing the same in Glasgow and Moray. At least this time they do seem to have got ahead but it is still something no one really knows about - even those who know a great deal in this area.

As I understand it, it's difficult to know whether a virus is genuinely more transmissible or whether it exists in circumstances where it's more likely to be transmitted.

The "Indian" variant was first identified in India, so it's probably reasonable to assume that it mutated there (although that can't really be proved). If a traveller from India brought it back to the country (and let's assume they did), he/she might not have been aware of it and could have infected family and friends before even showing symptoms.

As we know, many families of Indian origin live in close communities and often in overcrowded housing. They tend to have jobs which can't be done at home, so they travel to work and possibly are in close contact with others. Such an environment is conducive to rapid spread. The majority of cases in Bolton have been in younger people, who weren't eligible for vaccination. That could be why it appears more transmissible. Nobody really knows. There haven't been any experiments to test whether the mutated virus is stronger or anything. The only way scientists can tell is by looking at case incidence rates.

Right. The reason we use "transmissibility" instead of "infection" is because we may not become infected but the opportunity to transfer the infection is greater because the little s*d is better at entering our system(?)

We could use the much more obvious word and say this variant can be "transmitted" from one person to another much more effectively because of its mutation.(?)

If this is right - and the variant B.1617.2 has now crossed the Pennines, as it appears it may have done, I may not be wrong (not right but not wrong either) to have decided not to take up all the freedoms on offer (?)

Please don't use red pens but do tell me if I'm still missing the meaning.

Very interesting thread. And agree on lots of it.

From what I've read, Little Matty Hancock (as I call him) is very wrong to insinuate that this is spreading because the people in hospital weren't vaccinated.
I read some figures somewhere that this was not true. A large proportion had had their first vaccine but it all depends on 'when' given that antibodies can take at least 3 weeks to appear (and I know this to be case because I am tested regularly as part of a study and it was 4 weeks for me before antibodies appeared after Pfizer)

My impression is that the government has had its eye on public opinion rather than "following the science" and doing what's needed doing. Most of the media just follows government PR releases. Inducing panic has been used as a means of controlling people rather than rational explanation about what's needed to be done

So agree with this.
This Government have a lot to answer for.

Pippa This article was written in response to the "Kent" variant, but it applies in principle to all variants.

www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n504

There are a few other articles explaining the phenomenon and the issues.

In layman's talk, my understanding is that the virus, which is actually mutating all the time but some variants make it less successful, mutates in a way that makes transmission more successful. Even if somebody is exposed to the virus, it doesn't mean that it's inevitably transmitted. For some reason or other, the spike proteins don't "latch on" to receptors and the virus dies a natural death. Variants emerge which mean that the "latching on" is more successful. In the case of the "Kent" variant, there was a mutation to the spike proteins. I don't know what the mutation is with the "Indian" variant. What happens is that the more successful variants infect more people, who in turn go on to infect more people. The original virus isn't killed off by new variants, but eventually runs out of hosts to attack. Viruses (unlike bacteria) are actually quite fragile and die very quickly if they don't have a host. That's why identifying and isolating infected people is crucial.

Thank you GrannyGravy13 I saw that and tried to get back to it on line so I could take it down and give myself more time to go over it. There was another chap from one of the unversities who I thought made sense, i.e., I could understand, but they both see to have disappeared off the iplayer. I will be busy for a while but when I can I will look up Neil Ferguson and see if he has writen anything.

Try Professor Neil Ferguson, he was speaking about the variant earlier.

The thanks will go back and forth at this rate growstuff. That was a really useful post. I agree with you and Alegrias about the media reporting and the attempt to shake off responsibility.

I think I said elsewhere that I thought they should take the vaccine into the areas where it's needed. However, I will now take into greater account the fact that those needing vaccination had not, up to the last couple of days, been offered it and this seems to have been an "on the ground" decision rather than a government one.

The one thing I am finding difficult to pin down is what exactly transmissibility means when talking about the transmissibility advantage of B.1617.2. If I find an "Idiots guide to ..." I will post it. If anyone else finds one I would be grateful to see it.

Agreed ?

My impression is that the government has had its eye on public opinion rather than "following the science" and doing what's needed doing. Most of the media just follows government PR releases. Inducing panic has been used as a means of controlling people rather than rational explanation about what's needed to be done.

PS. I knew there'd be a typo somewhere. Should be "act" not "ask".

Really interesting and well thought out post growstuff.

Its been one of my hobby horses through this whole affair that the media in general are just stirring up panic and fear. Whether that's to support the government's approach, or because it makes a good headline, I couldn't say, but I do believe that there is irresponsible reporting.

Triggle is an exception. I tend to believe what he says because he analyses what things really mean - the "realistic possibility" for instance. I hope the response of the press is part of the enquiry we've been promised.

Thank you Pippa for transcribing the interview with Christina Pagel and Alegrias for the BBC link, although I'm not sure everybody will understand the maths or the implications of the term "realistic possibility".

My view is that, of course, viruses will continue to mutate and, no, the UK can't keep its borders closed forever. However, I don't think its a black and white (either/or) situation. We're not all going to be attacked by the "Indian" variant and be back to square one, but nor is it insignificant and can be ignored.

The UK is at the forefront of genomic sequencing. More than just about any other country, we have the ability to identify new variants. Now that the infection rates and hospital admissions are relatively low, we should have the ability to know what's going on and where and contain any outbreaks, but we need to ask fast and decisively. The test, track and isolate system needs to be on the ball and do its job.

I think the borders should have been closed to arrivals from the whole Indian subcontinent the moment the variant was identified, as a precaution and maybe only temporarily. If necessary, whole planes could have been met and all the passengers escorted to paid quarantine. All future arrivals should have been banned, until the situation was clearer. I don't really care if Modi had been upset.

I am concerned about the dog whistle racism which has crept into the debate about the "Indian" variant. Yes, it would appear to be more prevalent amongst communities of Indian origin, but there's no evidence that they are generally more vaccine hesitant than others. It could be that, having inadvertently brought the variant into the country from India, these communities live in crowded housing and have jobs with more face-to-face contact - and that's been an issue in some communities for the past year.

Even on GN we've seen people call out irresponsible travellers from India. It could be that the variant has been present in the UK for longer than thought and came in at a time when India's infection rate was quite low. We just don't know. To be honest, we don't even know if the original mutation happened in India.

It's not cause for panic, but nor is it a reason for complacency.

PS. I was watching a documentary about the eradication of smallpox yesterday. Apparently, Bangladesh proved to be a sticking point, but the country employed 150,000 door knockers (yes, 150,000) to find the unvaccinated people and encourage them to take up the vaccine. The last person to have smallpox was a small child, who responded to the vaccine and survived.

I don't think that scale of contact tracers is needed in the current situation in the UK, but shows what can be done if there's a will.

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-danger-of-unrest-in-bolton-if-local-coronavirus-lockdown-measures-imposed-council-leader-warns-12310645

Another view

GrannyGravy13Wed 19-May-21 10:26:03
in fact it was not an argument in any shape of form.
argument: a reason or reasons why you support or oppose an idea or suggestion, or the process of explaining these reasons.

PippaZ are you refuting the fact that viruses mutate?
A straw man argument: an informal fallacy having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

Don't be sorry Alegrias1. It seems the BBC are going for balance without accusation which is always a good read.

Sorry, this is the BBC again. But there is a definite change in the mood around this variant. Maybe not the Armageddon that was first thought?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57157496

We're going to have variants for ever more. If we panic about all of them we're going to wear ourselves out.

PippaZ are you refuting the fact that viruses mutate? I am sure SAGE or the unofficial SAGE would be interested to hear your evidence.

My post might have been simplistic, but it is neither a fallacy nor a straw man argument, in fact it was not an argument in any shape of form.

GrannyGravy13

If we were to / had totally lockdown the U.K. there is absolutely no guarantee that the virus which was already here would not have mutated, it’s what viruses do after all.

A straw man argument: an informal fallacy having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

If we were to / had totally lockdown the U.K. there is absolutely no guarantee that the virus which was already here would not have mutated, it’s what viruses do after all.

Thanks for the link Alegrias1. Very balanced, I thought. This was a bit stark though. "This situation was entirely expected. In six months time I'm sure we will be talking about another variant,"

Oopsadaisy1

Unless you totally lock the country down the virus will get in, whether or not you have been vaccinated.

Sounds obvious to me.

No one had or will have the appetite to close our borders, unlike Australia.

Who is "no one" Oopsadaisy1 you seem to be talking for others without their permission or agreement.

It's not just about closing boarders, it's about not having what has now been described as "joke" boarders. It's about not making a pigs ear or the messaging too.

It might also be about reading the science and then not blaming "anyone but Boris".

Unless you totally lock the country down the virus will get in, whether or not you have been vaccinated.

Sounds obvious to me.

No one had or will have the appetite to close our borders, unlike Australia.

Article by Nick Triggle that's based in science, not catchy headlines.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57150871

Interesting to note that "realistic possibility" means a 50:50 chance.