Double/triple/quadruple don't matter unless mutations give virus ability to spread faster, infect better. Please *ask* for more data (which unfortunately is coming v. slow or not coming at all) instead of counting mutations that're merely predicted to result in phenotypic changes https://twitter.com/ndtv/status/1384696364035047430

I have no idea what that image showing a double mutation progressing to a triple mutation means :-/

TV journalists really need to talk to actual scientists instead of counting mutations.

Not trying to minimise the role of variants in the current spread. But this is not the way to talk about variants, and what they mean.

Simple questions to ask scientists: could you please describe the data we have to show that these mutations are more concerning? What data do we need in addition to this to describe this variant as a Variant of Concern?

Chances are that you will hear that we have no such data. In which case, *that's* the story. That you have a 'triple mutation' that seems to be increasing in frequency, but further epidemiological and lab investigations to determine the level of concern aren't happening.

I would say that you should go a step further and try to understand why the work isn't happening? Have INSACOG labs gotten the money due to come to them? Why does NCDC not think it necessary to do such follow-up work? If they are not concerned, why are they not concerned?