Robert J. Gifford

This is probably what most interested in wastewater dream about rolling out more widely but utility will depend on linking with established diagnostic and syndromic surveillance

Complete genome sequences for 6 apes species

Complete ape genomes! 🦍🦧 Our closest relatives get the deluxe sequencing treatment, resolving the most complex & often most interesting parts of the genome.
Happy to make a tiny contribution alongside @panpan100.bsky.social to awesome teamwork & fantastic resource.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

There is currently no approved vaccine for scarlet fever.

It appears my error was in devoting decades to virology rather than mastering Victorian literature and kitchen remedies. A humbling revelation—thank you for your service to science.

I don't think you're capable of a reasonable discussion.
Bye!!!

Read what I wrote.

And why do you need a 2000 year timeline to make your point?

Is it because a shorter timeline would show child mortality dropping precipitously prior to mass vaccination?

It's not anti-vax to expect more honesty and clarity in public health messaging.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but if this is meant to persuade vaccine skeptics, I think it's disingenuous and probably counterproductive.

Why are you conflating water systems with vaccines?

Who's against clean water?

What starts as a critique of healthcare policy becomes an argument for a new moral regime in which science is moralised, and politics is medicalised.

Scottish-American. 😉

Macduff, Scotland

The Ghost in the Culture Flask:

Did Cold War virologists accidentally alter the evolution of a ubiquitous virus?

shorturl.at/HSke3

The Ghost in the Culture Flask:

Did Cold War virologists accidentally alter the evolution of a ubiquitous virus?

shorturl.at/HSke3

Discover GLUE: a versatile framework for virus genomics and beyond.

Explore adaptable tools, resources, and projects developed in our lab using GLUE:

github.com/giffordlabcv...

#Genomics #Bioinformatics #OpenScience

Interest in non-primate lentiviruses also seems to be declining.
This may impact efforts to manage the diseases caused by these viruses.

These trends are notable.
On this evidence, the prospects for the promised HIV-1 vaccine and/or cure don't look particularly great.

OK. Not sure how this is relevant but fine.

I wouldn't say it reflects infection rate.
Otherwise there might be a million Torquetenovirus publications a year.
It is reflective of global impact, but reaction was part of the impact.

It also emphasises the need for a more equitable and sustained approach to addressing all major viral threats, not just those that capture immediate global attention.

To me, this massive publication disparity illustrates how research priorities are shaped by societal and economic factors rather than inherent scientific value.

I think it shows the reactive nature of scientific funding and research focus, which seem to be tied to immediate perceived crises.

I've been comparing annual publication trends across different viruses

The vast difference in the number of publications for SARS-CoV-2 compared to other viruses like Ebola, Dengue, and Influenza A is striking.

Oh come along Professor Simmonds, now you're just being mean. 😉

The tree I posted was not intended to suggest that Latin binomials are replacing common names but to show in context the contrast between using the traditional names versus the binomials.

The application of rank-based scientific classification and Latin binomials to virus species is distinct, but obviously it impacts how how viruses are referred to - which is presumably what has made it controversial.

The naming process has inevitably changed due to vastly increased rates of discovery, as well as greater awareness of the potential sensitivities associated with virus names.

My comments were more generally about the changes in virus nomenclature that have occurred in recent times, with regard to both how viruses are named, and how they are referred to.

Good Afternoon Peter, and Happy New Year to you!

I take your point, my posts could be interpreted that way.

I didn't mean to imply that the ICTV is creating strictures around virus naming or anything of that nature.

But taxonomic systems don’t need to be perfect or immune to critique; they just need to work well enough to address practical needs.

The unique aspects of virus evolution are certainly going to make the application of taxonomy difficult and its likely virus taxonomy will be in a continual state of change.

Also, common names like "HIV" and "SARS-COV2" aren’t going anywhere. I think there are probably quite practical ways to make the old and new systems work together.