4 ms·
Unclear. We’re not sure how dangerous the new strain that popped up in London is. Often viruses tend to get less lethal as they get more infectious, like the co
by ashtonkem 6y ago
Unclear. We’re not sure how dangerous the new strain that popped up in London is. Often viruses tend to get less lethal as they get more infectious, like the common cold. Certainly I’d still advise caution, but London might not be in terrible shape yet.
- tayo42 6y agoIsn't that because it's easier to transmit when the host doesn't die. Like a survival of the fittest thing. Covid isn't deadly enough to stop transmissions
- ashtonkem 6y agoGenerally speaking it’s better for the virus to not kill the host, yes. Covid isn’t lethal enough to burn itself out rapidly, but one can imagine that the R0 would be a smidge higher if it was less lethal, since all those dead people could’ve spread it just a bit more if they’d lived. But it doesn’t appear like Covid is the absolute Max lethality possible for a pandemic; the 1918 flu pandemic seems to indicate that a virus can have a higher CFR and not burn out. So it could certainly get worse, but in general the trend is towards being less lethal making viruses more fit.
- sjg007 6y agoNo.
- thewarrior 6y agoActually we’re pretty sure now. They did studies of the new strain based on contact tracing and it was found to have a 50 % greater chance of infecting contacts. It’s also in the US now.
- jonny_eh 6y agoSure of what? They were asking if it's less lethal.
- zwily 6y agoInfectiousness is higher. Don’t know about lethality (but probably not higher).
- thewarrior 6y agoIf it’s more infectious it spreads faster, kills more people and overwhelms systems faster.
- jsnell 6y agoThe best evidence right now suggests that B.1.1.7 is significantly more trasmissible, but doesn't produce less (or more!) serious cases. (See the cohort matching study in this week's PHE report on the variant[0]). Maybe a statistically significant difference will emerge once we have more data, but at least for now it's better to not assume that. But let's say for argument's sake that the new variant is indeed half as serious, while being 70% more transmissive. That gives you one single multiplicative change in hospital utilization, but a permanent change to the exponent of the epidemic growth curve. The multiplicative benefit will basically get nullified by the increased growth in a week or two, and after that it is all downside. [0] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/948152/Technical_Briefing_VOC202012-2_Briefing_2_FINAL.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- trevyn 6y agoIs it possible that the increased transmissivity triggers behavioral changes that decrease transmissivity to below baseline? I.e., could a biologically more virulent virus actually be less virulent in reality because it triggers a coordinated behavioral response in humans?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- erentz 6y agoAll early of course. But it doesn’t appear the new variant is more deadly, but also its not clear its less deadly yet either. Assuming it’s about the same severity as the current variant then that spells bad news. This thread here does a decent job explaining that https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1343567425107881986 https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/134356742510788198...
- sjg007 6y agoMore infectious with same case fatality rate means it’s more deadly.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dehrmann 6y agoWith mass testing, public awareness, social distancing, etc., I'm not sure if the virus getting less lethal will hold. We're certainly selecting for more virulent strains, though.