Ethan
Money List Winner
If today, then probably this(sorry dont read main press, was guessing), you have probably already seen it but details in release about viral load being similar per ct values on page 35 if infected at that moment) :-
Meaghan Kall on Twitter: "GOOD Morning! ? 3 *new* variant @PHE_uk reports now published Technical Briefing 20 https://t.co/yauGnCfooO B.1.621/VUI21-JUL-01 risk assessment https://t.co/7QAJiPrmR3 Variant update 10 https://t.co/6pbVdX1FCS https://t.co/INEKTTqXb8" / Twitter
SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation (publishing.service.gov.uk)
edit interesting detail here
James Hay on Twitter: "How and how not to compare viral loads using surveillance data in multi-strain epidemics. New preprint with @michaelmina_lab and @LeeKShaffer https://t.co/7DAdYFxz0p 1/16" / Twitter
The MSM appears to have fundamentally understood this study and haven't even read the authors' conclusions. The paper basically shows that a certain approximate viral load will get you admitted, but the chance of that happening differs quite considerably between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. I don't think this tells us anything we didn't know, or at least suspect, already, and contains nothing that should raise a question over vaccination. The lab measurement issues over viral load only add to the confusion.