4 ms·

I wonder how much of this was caused by natural selection brought on by changes in human behavior; masks wearing, social distancing, etc.

• dm319 6y ago
  I'm sure this is likely. It's quite concerning, as it may mean that we need a full lock-down (as in people not going to work) until we have a majority of the population vaccinated.
  • raarts 6y ago
    I don't think that's even possible. I read somewhere that just about 40% of the population has the type of job that can be done from home. A lot of the rest is sitting at home due to restaurants, stores closing, but a fair amount of people is required to take care of the ones at home. Bringing them stuff, transporting it all. I doubt we can win from a virus other than adapting our immune system (and some people dying). Even vaccination might just encourage the virus to evolve.
    • dm319 6y ago
      By full lockdown I mean similar to the first-wave lockdown in the UK. No travelling for non-essential work, only key workers. Vaccination _is_ adapting the immune system, and exactly combats viral evolution by shutting down the transmission.
• rurban 6y ago
  No, this is normal for every RNA virus. It was already detected in May, that subsequent dominant strains (remember, the virus mutated with every single generation, every 10 days) have much more deletions than mutations, and are thus as such much less dangerous and much more transmissible, as their hosts don't detect it. This time UK got their sensationalist headline. In fact those are more dangerous, R is higher, and mortality is very low and insignificant. But reaching the vulnerable better makes it more dangerous in the end.