10 ms·

'New variant' of coronavirus identified

46 points by kjakm 6y ago

standardUser 6y ago
This is a good example of the kind of news that a) should be reported on since it's an important development relating to an ongoing global crisis but b) will be ruthlessly abused by the media to generate clicks, adding to the ever-increasing confusion among the general public about the pandemic. I'd almost rather it not be reported on since it will only diminish, not enhance, most people's understanding of the virus.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  I'd rather the BBC responsibly report that there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work, to any alternative. Facts will get out. You say "the media" as if each outlet is the same, but that's not the case - both responsible sources and conspiracy theorists (among other types of reporters) are represented among "the media". If you want people to have a better understanding of this, it's better that responsible sources get ahead of misinformation.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    Maybe we should start calling it the "clickbait media". I do see the BBC as a different type of news outlet that generally plays it straight, and the wording of this particular article sounds very responsible to me. But much of the rest of the media will have a field day with this.
    - 52-6F-62 6y ago
      > But much of the rest of the media will have a field day with this. Until that happens, isn't blanket-labelling them a guilty party a little premature?
- wayne_skylar 6y ago
  The pandemic has really made me second guess my blind trust in the "trusted" sources. When the WHO released a statement saying that it hadn't been proven that antibodies prevent covid, the media ran with the sensationalist "antibodies are ineffective" slant. I simply can't believe that the news organizations that ran with that version didn't do it on purpose. The same can be said for reinfections and perhaps even long-term effects. The narrative surrounding these concepts is so common that I hear it from friends as if it were common knowledge. I don't know about the long-term effects but I am pretty certain that reinfections are very rare. But the prevalence of either seems to be omitted from the story. Of course we don't know because the news often reports anecdotes when there is no data or even when there is data. The news isn't held to the standard of giving a whole picture, just a glimpse of the current moment. In that they find a lot of wiggle room to publish things that are in the "public interest" while also benefiting from sensationalism.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    I have the same reaction. We have listened to falsehoods after falsehoods. A few other examples from the top of my mind: - Masks protect you / masks don't protect you (I don't know which is true but it is one or the other) - Infection fatality rates > 5%. - Virus also dangerous for young people - Drawing any conclusion from comparing daily cases from the first wave to the second wave (when orders of magnitude more tests were done during the second wave) - Virus as dangerous as Ebola (read on the front page of the Times in the UK!) - Hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug - You must stay locked-down until there is a vaccine, even if you had it, as we may not develop immunity (it is either one or the other, if we don't develop immunity there will be no vaccine). - The virus is not a concern if you go protest BLM - The virus doesn't respect borders (of course it does because it is carried by humans) I am sure I could think of more. But my point is the media did everything they could to terrorize the population. And the outcome is x% of the public terrorised, and (1-x%) of the public not believing a word from the media anymore.
    - abraae 6y ago
      You've made it fairly clear which camp you are in by the framing of your "falsehoods". Masks primarily protect others, so whether they protect you is a secondary question. And no-one (with any credibility) is really stating any of the other positions you've listed.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  Problem is, you could report the most well-sourced, well-worded article and some portion of the readership would only glean a few details, wrapped up in the context of their own understanding or existing outlook, and then repeated through their own interpretation. There's really nothing to be done to prevent this except to note how important it is to consider all of the associated information, and present its context. You'll never control how the information is processed by each receiving party, and nor should you. It's good to have this information—it's good to let people know that there is always the potential for something similar, or worse, to arise. Similar to knowing your entire house might be wiped out [by a major storm] someday if you move to Florida—which wouldn't surprise anyone anymore. Repeated dispersal of the information will help prevent rampant hysteria... once a semblance of understanding and context is normalized.
- sleepydog 6y ago
  Are there any news sources that aren't quite so breathless? I'm not talking about left/right biases, there's a general tendency for all news outlets to report stories that highlight negative aspects and generally choose words that induce anger in one group or another (think of the over-use of words like "slam").
8bitben 6y ago
Key point Mr Hancock said there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work. Fairly clickbaity headline to use on the first week people are receiving the vaccine.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  "new variant" is literally a quote from a government minister. I don't think that's the usual definition of "clickbait". How would you rephrase it?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    My impression of the current U.K. government is that the only thing it can do well is utter “clickbait”-style soundbites. This is suboptimal, and I hope my impression is inaccurate.
    - mnd999 6y ago
      You pretty much nailed it.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      What does "clickbait" mean in this context? Traditional clickbait is "you won't believe what just happened, click to read!". I have no love for the UK government, but clickbait is not the word that comes to mind. Here's the quote: “Over the last few days, thanks to our world-class genomic capability in the UK, we have identified a new variant of coronavirus which may be associated with the fastest spread of the virus in the south-east of England. “Initial analysis suggests that this variant is growing faster than the existing variance [sic, should be 'variants'?]. We’ve currently identified over 1,000 cases with this variant, predominantly in the south of England, although cases have been identified in nearly 60 different local authority areas and numbers are increasing rapidly.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/14/new-strain-of-covid-19-may-be-cause-of-rise-in-cases-hancock-tells-mps https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/14/new-strain-of-...
    - bb123 6y ago
benatkin 6y ago
> Mr Hancock said there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work. I was paying more attention to the vaccines would no longer work part. People need a worldview in order to function. Mine has been shattered a few times, including with this pandemic. Still, I have a lot of expectations. I don't think there will be anything worse than COVID-19 that comes from a highly communicable respiratory transmitted illness, just like when I lived in the Bay Area I didn't think there would be a huge earthquake anytime soon... The possibility of the current crop of vaccines not being overwhelmingly effective, or not being distributed widely, or not being taken widely, thereby extending the quarantine past this summer, is something I'm braced for (although not really prepared for).
- pyronik19 6y ago
  The only reason people are tolerating more lockdowns and more quarantines and masks are because the vaccine which is being deployed now is going to end all of that. First it was 14 days to slow the spread and flatten the curve and somehow they stretched that for a year into wait for the vaccine. Unlike Charlie Brown, if they pull this football away I won't be obeying any more orders. Gates said it might be into 2022 until masks will end. Who the put Gates in charge?
  - standardUser 6y ago
    Your experience sounds extremely localized (I'd guess California). The pandemic has been handled very differently state-to-state and city-to-city (not to mention internationally). I could see being frustrated if you live in one of the stricter regions, but you should also remember that in many parts of the US and the world, people have been having parties and going to bars, etc for most of this year.
    - outside1234 6y ago
      And, outside of Asia and Australia and New Zealand where there is actual containment, causing the rest of us to die because of it.
  - 6y ago
tyho 6y ago
Since we have known the virus has been acquiring mutations since basically the beginning [0]. What makes this variant significant enough for the Health Secretary to bring up in Parliament? [0] https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global
- y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
  They updated the article. Originally they said it was significant because of its potential to spread faster. > “We have identified a new variant of coronavirus, which may be associated with the faster spread in the southeast of England,” Hancock said in a statement to parliament.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  What is unstated here is that the Health Minister is unlikely to mention this in parliament if it is not suspected that there may be a more contagious or harmful strain. If there is a strain that is more fatal or more virulent, it will be the UK's own fault. I did not see this reasonably obvious possibility being taken into account in any UK government modelling that was done. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone in December 2020, and yet it is apparently a surprise to the UK government.
  - bencollier49 6y ago
    > If there is a strain that is more fatal or more virulent, it will be the UK's own fault. Why's that then?
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      Planning to take the minimum action to prevent spread (keep R at or just below 1) is equal to doing the maximum amount to enable mutations and new strains. Again: this wasn't considered by the UK's scientific modelling.
tomcooks 6y ago
Why is BBC trying to hijack back button
- crysin 6y ago
  Because browsers allow it.
grawprog 6y ago
Wait...didn't this happen in australia not long ago...? https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-south-australias-dangerous-new-virus-strain-claim-falls-apart/news-story/62e66079e60156c60f6511de48993f3e https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/cor... >South Australia was plunged into a strict six-day lockdown on the back of a declaration that a “dangerous” new strain of coronavirus had swept the state’s capital. >It was a claim that raised eyebrows among epidemiologists around the country, some of whom labelled it “rubbish”. >Today, it was essentially revealed that an alleged lie led health authorities and the government to conclude a new strain must have merged.
elihu 6y ago
Though the article says: >[Health Secretary Matt Hancock] said there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work. I do wonder in general about the "herd immunity" strategy and the likelihood that a worse strain or one that's resistant to the current vaccines comes along. I assume that the probability of mutation is basically proportional to the number of people who are infected by SARS-CoV-2. So, in addition to all the usual reasons why letting the virus spread freely until most of the population develops immunity (for some unknown length of time) is a bad idea, it seems like the spread of the virus is also setting up optimal conditions for the virus to evolve into something different or worse. I'm not an expert though, and I imagine there are probably other factors I'm not aware of besides number and severity of infections in determining whether a virus evolves or not.

46 points by kjakm 6y ago

This is a good example of the kind of news that a) should be reported on since it's an important development relating to an ongoing global crisis but b) will be ruthlessly abused by the media to generate clicks, adding to the ever-increasing confusion among the general public about the pandemic. I'd almost rather it not be reported on since it will only diminish, not enhance, most people's understanding of the virus.

dfxm12 6y ago
I'd rather the BBC responsibly report that there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work, to any alternative. Facts will get out. You say "the media" as if each outlet is the same, but that's not the case - both responsible sources and conspiracy theorists (among other types of reporters) are represented among "the media". If you want people to have a better understanding of this, it's better that responsible sources get ahead of misinformation.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Maybe we should start calling it the "clickbait media". I do see the BBC as a different type of news outlet that generally plays it straight, and the wording of this particular article sounds very responsible to me. But much of the rest of the media will have a field day with this.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    > But much of the rest of the media will have a field day with this. Until that happens, isn't blanket-labelling them a guilty party a little premature?
wayne_skylar 6y ago
The pandemic has really made me second guess my blind trust in the "trusted" sources. When the WHO released a statement saying that it hadn't been proven that antibodies prevent covid, the media ran with the sensationalist "antibodies are ineffective" slant. I simply can't believe that the news organizations that ran with that version didn't do it on purpose. The same can be said for reinfections and perhaps even long-term effects. The narrative surrounding these concepts is so common that I hear it from friends as if it were common knowledge. I don't know about the long-term effects but I am pretty certain that reinfections are very rare. But the prevalence of either seems to be omitted from the story. Of course we don't know because the news often reports anecdotes when there is no data or even when there is data. The news isn't held to the standard of giving a whole picture, just a glimpse of the current moment. In that they find a lot of wiggle room to publish things that are in the "public interest" while also benefiting from sensationalism.
- cm2187 6y ago
  I have the same reaction. We have listened to falsehoods after falsehoods. A few other examples from the top of my mind: - Masks protect you / masks don't protect you (I don't know which is true but it is one or the other) - Infection fatality rates > 5%. - Virus also dangerous for young people - Drawing any conclusion from comparing daily cases from the first wave to the second wave (when orders of magnitude more tests were done during the second wave) - Virus as dangerous as Ebola (read on the front page of the Times in the UK!) - Hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug - You must stay locked-down until there is a vaccine, even if you had it, as we may not develop immunity (it is either one or the other, if we don't develop immunity there will be no vaccine). - The virus is not a concern if you go protest BLM - The virus doesn't respect borders (of course it does because it is carried by humans) I am sure I could think of more. But my point is the media did everything they could to terrorize the population. And the outcome is x% of the public terrorised, and (1-x%) of the public not believing a word from the media anymore.
  - abraae 6y ago
    You've made it fairly clear which camp you are in by the framing of your "falsehoods". Masks primarily protect others, so whether they protect you is a secondary question. And no-one (with any credibility) is really stating any of the other positions you've listed.
52-6F-62 6y ago
Problem is, you could report the most well-sourced, well-worded article and some portion of the readership would only glean a few details, wrapped up in the context of their own understanding or existing outlook, and then repeated through their own interpretation. There's really nothing to be done to prevent this except to note how important it is to consider all of the associated information, and present its context. You'll never control how the information is processed by each receiving party, and nor should you. It's good to have this information—it's good to let people know that there is always the potential for something similar, or worse, to arise. Similar to knowing your entire house might be wiped out [by a major storm] someday if you move to Florida—which wouldn't surprise anyone anymore. Repeated dispersal of the information will help prevent rampant hysteria... once a semblance of understanding and context is normalized.
sleepydog 6y ago
Are there any news sources that aren't quite so breathless? I'm not talking about left/right biases, there's a general tendency for all news outlets to report stories that highlight negative aspects and generally choose words that induce anger in one group or another (think of the over-use of words like "slam").

8bitben 6y ago

Key point Mr Hancock said there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work. Fairly clickbaity headline to use on the first week people are receiving the vaccine.

roywiggins 6y ago
"new variant" is literally a quote from a government minister. I don't think that's the usual definition of "clickbait". How would you rephrase it?
- ben_w 6y ago
  My impression of the current U.K. government is that the only thing it can do well is utter “clickbait”-style soundbites. This is suboptimal, and I hope my impression is inaccurate.
  - mnd999 6y ago
    You pretty much nailed it.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    What does "clickbait" mean in this context? Traditional clickbait is "you won't believe what just happened, click to read!". I have no love for the UK government, but clickbait is not the word that comes to mind. Here's the quote: “Over the last few days, thanks to our world-class genomic capability in the UK, we have identified a new variant of coronavirus which may be associated with the fastest spread of the virus in the south-east of England. “Initial analysis suggests that this variant is growing faster than the existing variance [sic, should be 'variants'?]. We’ve currently identified over 1,000 cases with this variant, predominantly in the south of England, although cases have been identified in nearly 60 different local authority areas and numbers are increasing rapidly.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/14/new-strain-of-covid-19-may-be-cause-of-rise-in-cases-hancock-tells-mps https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/14/new-strain-of-...
  - bb123 6y ago

benatkin 6y ago

> Mr Hancock said there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work. I was paying more attention to the vaccines would no longer work part. People need a worldview in order to function. Mine has been shattered a few times, including with this pandemic. Still, I have a lot of expectations. I don't think there will be anything worse than COVID-19 that comes from a highly communicable respiratory transmitted illness, just like when I lived in the Bay Area I didn't think there would be a huge earthquake anytime soon... The possibility of the current crop of vaccines not being overwhelmingly effective, or not being distributed widely, or not being taken widely, thereby extending the quarantine past this summer, is something I'm braced for (although not really prepared for).

pyronik19 6y ago
The only reason people are tolerating more lockdowns and more quarantines and masks are because the vaccine which is being deployed now is going to end all of that. First it was 14 days to slow the spread and flatten the curve and somehow they stretched that for a year into wait for the vaccine. Unlike Charlie Brown, if they pull this football away I won't be obeying any more orders. Gates said it might be into 2022 until masks will end. Who the put Gates in charge?
- standardUser 6y ago
  Your experience sounds extremely localized (I'd guess California). The pandemic has been handled very differently state-to-state and city-to-city (not to mention internationally). I could see being frustrated if you live in one of the stricter regions, but you should also remember that in many parts of the US and the world, people have been having parties and going to bars, etc for most of this year.
  - outside1234 6y ago
    And, outside of Asia and Australia and New Zealand where there is actual containment, causing the rest of us to die because of it.
- 6y ago

tyho 6y ago

Since we have known the virus has been acquiring mutations since basically the beginning [0]. What makes this variant significant enough for the Health Secretary to bring up in Parliament? [0] https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

y-c-o-m-b 6y ago
They updated the article. Originally they said it was significant because of its potential to spread faster. > “We have identified a new variant of coronavirus, which may be associated with the faster spread in the southeast of England,” Hancock said in a statement to parliament.
throwaway2245 6y ago
What is unstated here is that the Health Minister is unlikely to mention this in parliament if it is not suspected that there may be a more contagious or harmful strain. If there is a strain that is more fatal or more virulent, it will be the UK's own fault. I did not see this reasonably obvious possibility being taken into account in any UK government modelling that was done. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone in December 2020, and yet it is apparently a surprise to the UK government.
- bencollier49 6y ago
  > If there is a strain that is more fatal or more virulent, it will be the UK's own fault. Why's that then?
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    Planning to take the minimum action to prevent spread (keep R at or just below 1) is equal to doing the maximum amount to enable mutations and new strains. Again: this wasn't considered by the UK's scientific modelling.

tomcooks 6y ago

Why is BBC trying to hijack back button

crysin 6y ago
Because browsers allow it.

grawprog 6y ago

Wait...didn't this happen in australia not long ago...? https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-south-australias-dangerous-new-virus-strain-claim-falls-apart/news-story/62e66079e60156c60f6511de48993f3e https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/cor... >South Australia was plunged into a strict six-day lockdown on the back of a declaration that a “dangerous” new strain of coronavirus had swept the state’s capital. >It was a claim that raised eyebrows among epidemiologists around the country, some of whom labelled it “rubbish”. >Today, it was essentially revealed that an alleged lie led health authorities and the government to conclude a new strain must have merged.

elihu 6y ago

Though the article says: >[Health Secretary Matt Hancock] said there was "nothing to suggest" it caused worse disease or that vaccines would no longer work. I do wonder in general about the "herd immunity" strategy and the likelihood that a worse strain or one that's resistant to the current vaccines comes along. I assume that the probability of mutation is basically proportional to the number of people who are infected by SARS-CoV-2. So, in addition to all the usual reasons why letting the virus spread freely until most of the population develops immunity (for some unknown length of time) is a bad idea, it seems like the spread of the virus is also setting up optimal conditions for the virus to evolve into something different or worse. I'm not an expert though, and I imagine there are probably other factors I'm not aware of besides number and severity of infections in determining whether a virus evolves or not.