5 ms·

As has been pointed out in an earlier article about the "new strain"[1]: "Let's not be hysterical. It doesn't mean it's more transmissible or more infectious o

As has been pointed out in an earlier article about the "new strain"[1]: "Let's not be hysterical. It doesn't mean it's more transmissible or more infectious or dangerous." That there are new strains of COVID-19 has been covered over, and over, and over, and over again on the This Week in Virology podcast[2] (which usually has 4 to 6 virologists on it every week discussing COVID-19 news), and they've always had the same message: New strains naturally arise all the time as the virus mutates, but there is no evidence that these mutations make the virus more transmissible or infectious. Nor do they make the illness more severe nor otherwise affect clinical outcomes, nor make treatment any less effective. People just love to talk up the discovery of new strains, thinking that coronavirus mutations are like flu mutations (which actually do require new vaccines every year), but they're not. Coronavirus strains are kept an eye on by scientists for the purpose of tracking the spread and origin of the disease, and there'll always be one strain that will be more common than others, but it doesn't mean it's something we have to fear any more than any other strain. [1] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308211 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55308211 [2] - https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/

chimprich 6y ago
That's old news, unfortunately. The latest data suggest that it is significantly more transmissible. "Up to" 70% more, according to the UK government's press conference. This is big. Luckily, it doesn't seem to be more dangerous in terms of hospital admissions. Statement from Chris Whitty, UK's chief medical advisor to the government: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-chief-medical-officer-professor-chris-whitty-about-new-strain-of-covid-19 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-chief-medi...
- oxfordmale 6y ago
  NERVTAG's early analysis suggests the new variant could increase R by 0.4 or greater. Although there is considerable uncertainty, it may be up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- addicted 6y ago
  Maybe I’m too cynical, but it sounds like the new strain is an excuse to explain why the U.K. PM, who until a day ago was publicly not putting any restrictions on Britons, and especially Londoners for Christmas, is now suddenly reversing himself.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
While this is true generally, please bear in mind that the numbers in the UK do seem to be somewhat concerning. I don’t have actual values yet, but from the announcements from the various UK governments it seems to be the case that the case rate in London has almost tripled in the past 18 days, and 60% of current cases are this new strain. The response in the UK has been pretty rapid and strict, and this has been justified by the governments on the basis of monitoring of this new strain. It’s unlikely (of course not impossible) that this decision would be taken without some decent evidence backing it up.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Indeed. And there is also the evidence from Kent (where it seems likely this new strain originated), where case numbers were increasing despite Tier 3 restrictions (all pubs and restaurants closed, etc)
k0stas 6y ago
> but there is no evidence that these mutations Parroting NN Taleb: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't we learned from coronavirus that we need to use the precautionary principle in the face of new information that is not fully understood. I don't know where you are from, but I locally heard a string of "there is no evidence of" starting in about January of 2019. There was no evidence that the virus would leave China (it did). No evidence that shutting down travel from infected areas would help (see Vietnam). No evidence of community transmission (it has happened in most of the globe). No evidence that masks help prevent transmission (appears to reduce transmission rates). I am starting to think as soon as someone asserts "there is no evidence" for something related to the coronavirus, it is a foregone conclusion. In any case, nobody can assert with absolute certainty that the coronavirus cannot mutate into a more severe or more transmissible virus, especially in the face of a the long human history of being (literally) plagued by mutating viruses. A critical mutation is a possibility and we should be extremely cautious and vigilant against it. Even if we erroneously overreact 10 times to false mutations, the 11th time might be the one the matters. And the cost of those 11 overreactions will be much less than the cost of letting it go wild.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  Parroting Christopher Hitchens: what is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof Mutations that have a real impact on the RNA of the virus are incredibly rare. Most random mutations and errors replicating don't produce any meaningful change in the virus and you have to get very unlucky for a deadly mutation to happen. We should stick to scientific rationalism even if it has limits. There has been too much opportunistic fear-mongering and questionable decision making playing advantage off the back of a natural virus. This thing obeys the laws of physics, kills people in a particular pattern and can be managed with scientific tools we have had forever. There is simply no need for everybody to be hysterical yet again, when the science of the virus can be so easily spelled out for the masses. But noo, we have to have a boogeyman to build a network of cultural changes. This particular mechanism of hijacking a natural disaster for control is embarrassingly transparent.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
rweir 6y ago
yes, obviously things mutate, but all your other information in this comment is out of date - the current information is the strain they're talking about is 70% more infectious.
AntiImperialist 6y ago
New strain doesn't mean that it will necessarily have very different characteristics but it also doesn't mean that it will definitely not. If it is a different enough strain, it can be 100 times deadly or 500 times more transimissible or both. Also, the coronavirus that causes common cold has over 160 known strains, which is why creating a vaccine for it isn't feasible. The same can happen for COVID-19.
twic 6y ago
We should acknowledge that this new strain is different [1] in some ways: > The B.1.1.7 lineage carries a larger than usual number of virus genetic changes. The accrual of 14 lineage-specific amino acid replacements prior to its detection is, to date, unprecedented in the global virus genomic data for the COVID-19 pandemic. Most branches in the global phylogenetic tree of SARS-CoV-2 show no more than a few mutations and mutations accumulate at a relatively consistent rate over time. It's certainly still not proven that it's definitely more infectious than the other strains. But it's a bit of a stretch to infer from previous experience here, given the quantitative difference. [1] https://virological.org/t/preliminary-genomic-characterisation-of-an-emergent-sars-cov-2-lineage-in-the-uk-defined-by-a-novel-set-of-spike-mutations/563 https://virological.org/t/preliminary-genomic-characterisati...

chimprich 6y ago

That's old news, unfortunately. The latest data suggest that it is significantly more transmissible. "Up to" 70% more, according to the UK government's press conference. This is big. Luckily, it doesn't seem to be more dangerous in terms of hospital admissions. Statement from Chris Whitty, UK's chief medical advisor to the government: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-chief-medical-officer-professor-chris-whitty-about-new-strain-of-covid-19 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-chief-medi...

oxfordmale 6y ago
NERVTAG's early analysis suggests the new variant could increase R by 0.4 or greater. Although there is considerable uncertainty, it may be up to 70% more transmissible than the old variant.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
addicted 6y ago
Maybe I’m too cynical, but it sounds like the new strain is an excuse to explain why the U.K. PM, who until a day ago was publicly not putting any restrictions on Britons, and especially Londoners for Christmas, is now suddenly reversing himself.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

While this is true generally, please bear in mind that the numbers in the UK do seem to be somewhat concerning. I don’t have actual values yet, but from the announcements from the various UK governments it seems to be the case that the case rate in London has almost tripled in the past 18 days, and 60% of current cases are this new strain. The response in the UK has been pretty rapid and strict, and this has been justified by the governments on the basis of monitoring of this new strain. It’s unlikely (of course not impossible) that this decision would be taken without some decent evidence backing it up.

nicoburns 6y ago
Indeed. And there is also the evidence from Kent (where it seems likely this new strain originated), where case numbers were increasing despite Tier 3 restrictions (all pubs and restaurants closed, etc)

k0stas 6y ago

> but there is no evidence that these mutations Parroting NN Taleb: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Haven't we learned from coronavirus that we need to use the precautionary principle in the face of new information that is not fully understood. I don't know where you are from, but I locally heard a string of "there is no evidence of" starting in about January of 2019. There was no evidence that the virus would leave China (it did). No evidence that shutting down travel from infected areas would help (see Vietnam). No evidence of community transmission (it has happened in most of the globe). No evidence that masks help prevent transmission (appears to reduce transmission rates). I am starting to think as soon as someone asserts "there is no evidence" for something related to the coronavirus, it is a foregone conclusion. In any case, nobody can assert with absolute certainty that the coronavirus cannot mutate into a more severe or more transmissible virus, especially in the face of a the long human history of being (literally) plagued by mutating viruses. A critical mutation is a possibility and we should be extremely cautious and vigilant against it. Even if we erroneously overreact 10 times to false mutations, the 11th time might be the one the matters. And the cost of those 11 overreactions will be much less than the cost of letting it go wild.

friendlybus 6y ago
Parroting Christopher Hitchens: what is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof Mutations that have a real impact on the RNA of the virus are incredibly rare. Most random mutations and errors replicating don't produce any meaningful change in the virus and you have to get very unlucky for a deadly mutation to happen. We should stick to scientific rationalism even if it has limits. There has been too much opportunistic fear-mongering and questionable decision making playing advantage off the back of a natural virus. This thing obeys the laws of physics, kills people in a particular pattern and can be managed with scientific tools we have had forever. There is simply no need for everybody to be hysterical yet again, when the science of the virus can be so easily spelled out for the masses. But noo, we have to have a boogeyman to build a network of cultural changes. This particular mechanism of hijacking a natural disaster for control is embarrassingly transparent.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

rweir 6y ago

yes, obviously things mutate, but all your other information in this comment is out of date - the current information is the strain they're talking about is 70% more infectious.

AntiImperialist 6y ago

New strain doesn't mean that it will necessarily have very different characteristics but it also doesn't mean that it will definitely not. If it is a different enough strain, it can be 100 times deadly or 500 times more transimissible or both. Also, the coronavirus that causes common cold has over 160 known strains, which is why creating a vaccine for it isn't feasible. The same can happen for COVID-19.

twic 6y ago

We should acknowledge that this new strain is different [1] in some ways: > The B.1.1.7 lineage carries a larger than usual number of virus genetic changes. The accrual of 14 lineage-specific amino acid replacements prior to its detection is, to date, unprecedented in the global virus genomic data for the COVID-19 pandemic. Most branches in the global phylogenetic tree of SARS-CoV-2 show no more than a few mutations and mutations accumulate at a relatively consistent rate over time. It's certainly still not proven that it's definitely more infectious than the other strains. But it's a bit of a stretch to infer from previous experience here, given the quantitative difference. [1] https://virological.org/t/preliminary-genomic-characterisation-of-an-emergent-sars-cov-2-lineage-in-the-uk-defined-by-a-novel-set-of-spike-mutations/563 https://virological.org/t/preliminary-genomic-characterisati...