6 ms·

California’s coronavirus strain looks increasingly dangerous

sep_field 6y ago
At minimum, everyone must wear a mask. No excuses.
- aphroz 6y ago
  Do we have proofs that it works or does it makes people feel safer ? What kind of masks (FFP1, FFP2) ?
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    There is evidence that it reduces transmission somewhat: probably not a lot, but even a few percent will have an impact. The best thing to do, mask or not, is avoid close contact with other people. Avoid crowds; maintain 2m distance; and so on. The advice has never been about protecting you or anyone else in particular, it is about reducing the transmission in the general population. With that goal in mind, small benefits can have a major impact overall.
  - krono 6y ago
    If nothing else, it's a constant reminder to people that there's a serious problem going on that we need everyone's help with to fix. Just another while longer, hopefully.
  - Arainach 6y ago
    Yes, masks work. The evidence has always been consistent on that. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 That we are still having this question raised after a year of the pandemic is embarrassing for humanity as a species.
    - timr 6y ago
      The only randomized controlled trial for masks and Covid-19 found no statistically significant protective effect. Jeremy Howard didn't even bother citing it in the review you're linking: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 The Howard review is, in general, of extremely low quality. The top-line conclusions of some of the cited articles are completely mis-interpreted, and the citations within are sloppy and misleading -- bold assertions are made without evidence, and the reader is led to assume that a leading/trailing citation provides support for the claim, when it does not. There are far better reviews of the available literature. Here is one: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-... The meta-study commissioned by the WHO is another: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... You'll note that they found a small positive effect for masks in the community, only when including and aggregating a large number of low-quality studies. They admit that the evidence base is weak. In general, there's a great deal of uncertainty around the effectiveness of masks in the hands of the general public. There may be a small positive effect, but we simply don't know. One of the biggest mistakes of this pandemic has been the political weaponization of this issue, and the exaggeration of certainty -- on both sides of the debate.
      - jasonvorhe 6y ago
        I'm pretty happy with how it was handled in Germany. Masks clearly aren't marketed as a perfect solution, but as a key element in a mix of other measures that are social distancing, work from home, leave home for necessities, keep your distance during visits to the supermarket, etc. I'm really surprised that masks turned out to be such a cause for drama. At the worst they caused discomfort, especially for people with big beards/prescription glasses, but if it turns out wearing masks helped just by a margin, isn't that already worth it, in the grand scheme of things? Isn't 1 live saved out of a 1000 already with the negatives? It just baffles me.
        timr 6y ago
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Yes, the have been peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate effectiveness: https://files.nc.gov/covid/documents/info-for/The-effectiveness-of-face-masks-to-prevent-SARS-CoV.pdf https://files.nc.gov/covid/documents/info-for/The-effectiven... All masks have some improvement over the absence of a mask. High-end masks have been mandatory in Berlin supermarkets for a while now.
  - jasonvorhe 6y ago
    This gives a good overview over the current state of scientific research wrt mask usage in general: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 tl:dr: Some indicators point to masks being useful but the data isn't conclusive and a lot of other factors might impact the data (such as other covid-19 related measures that help in keeping infection rates low) but these two quotes should be sufficient reason to wear them: “There’s a lot more we would like to know,” says Vos, who contributed to the analysis. “But given that it is such a simple, low-cost intervention with potentially such a large impact, who would not want to use it?” It’s not the only solution, says Gandhi, “but I think it is a profoundly important pillar of pandemic control”. As Digard puts it: “Masks work, but they are not infallible. And, therefore, keep your distance.”
  - Bancakes 6y ago
    Yeah some people have done simulations to show the spread of particles with and without a mask. That's enough for me, I trust physics over correlational statistics.
  - tzs 6y ago
    If you have someone you live in close enough contact with that you are already going to be sharing any respiratory illnesses, you can do a simple experiment. Have them stand across the room from you, without wearing a mask, and have them cough at you. Then have them move a step closer and do it again. Note where you can first feel the cough. Then repeat but with them wearing a mask. You should find that they have to get much closer. Second experiment. Having them at the place they ended up after the first experiment, have them cough at you without their mask on. Not subjectively how much cough seems to have reached you. Now have them put on their mask, and repeatedly cough at you until you feel the same total amount of cough has reached you. You should find that it takes many more coughs on their part. For a virus that is expelled when you expel air and then sinks rather than lingering indefinitely anything that reduces the horizontal range of someone's expulsions, such as the above experiments demonstrate masks do, must decrease the number of viruses you will get from someone who is spreading it when you pass by them.
  - aphroz 6y ago
    Can we still question things, genuinely ? I think the most harmful consequence in the long term will be how we will accept to follow orders without questioning it. I have read different articles saying that no measures have been proven efficient against COVID. I think that many countries will use the masks to make people feel safe and keep going to work. Asian countries have been testing and isolating, while western countries let people work even when they are sick, by using masks.
- throwaway45349 6y ago
  Some are medically exempt. This mask-or-else culture pushes those people out of society, totally unfairly.
  - ChrisRR 6y ago
    No, It has been determined time and time again that if you have a respiratory illness that means you're struggling to breathe so much that you can't breathe with a mask on, that puts you in the extremely high risk category from covid The only legitimate reasons are associated with anxiety issues, which aren't medically exempt.
  - mike_d 6y ago
    According to the chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, the only legitimate medical exemption is people who are on supplemental oxygen. Even patients with chronic lung disease can wear a non-N95 mask with no detrimental effects. The CDC does recognize intellectual and developmental disabilities as legitimate medical exemptions, which I believe is the most common case we are seeing the US.
- ben_w 6y ago
  On the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, saying it didn’t make it so for HIV and condoms. Policy must account for people not all doing the correct thing; for people who think it’s overblown or a conspiracy; etc.
  - sep_field 6y ago
    Fines and jail time would be a start at correcting policy. Especially jail time for cops who refuse to wear masks.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Fines I agree with, thought I suspect jail would make things worse. Not just because jail is a health risk all by itself, but because compliance with the law depends on people collectively agreeing that the law is just, and excessive punishment does the opposite (or so I hear).
      - sep_field 6y ago
        yeah I think jail is best reserved for cops and politicians.
gremlinsinc 6y ago
This virus just keeps on giving... more virulent (11 times higher chance of death than normal strain and higher icu rates), more transmissible. It's like Hollywood writers are writing our timeline now for dramatic effect. Maybe they need to upgrade it from covid-19 to covid-2021. At which point does a variant get a new version number?
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  If it is truly a strain and not a variant, it should get a new name
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    guess I'm just tired of the same name, maybe we just call it covid.. and strike the 19... since everything is a derivative/mutation and not wholly the same full strain, but I'm not a virologist by any measure.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      at some point scientists have to settle with the fact that it is now endemic. We don't call the flu 'flu-2021'
      - sep_field 6y ago
        we probably should though. The flu is different every year. Which is why we need new flu shots every year. Giving it a new name would help the public understand.
        DiabloD3 6y ago
        That's bad thinking: the public doesn't want to understand. The public is what on HN would be called a "bad manager", and says crazy shit like "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions!" Curing the Flu is a solution. The public wants this, not a flu shot, no matter how impossible the task is. A flu shot every year is just band-aiding the problem, and redelivering said problem every year.
surfmike 6y ago
Odd that there’s no discussion of the fact that case counts are currently plummeting in California.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chki 6y ago
  If a new variant emerges during a "recession" of the original variant, it will automatically hide within the high case numbers of the original variant.
- simonh 6y ago
  Well, obviously both can be true at the same time - the new strain can be more infectious but overall case counts can be under control due to more effective control measures and lockdown discipline. You're coming off a huge bloom in cases from the double holiday and New Year period in the US when a lot of people mixed over a period of a month or more. Maybe this strain explains the high prevalence of the disease in California despite relatively restrictive and early lockdown measures. Ive seen that cited several times here, relative to Florida, to argue that lockdowns don't make any difference.
  - kenneth 6y ago
    Florida also celebrates Thanksgiving / Christmas / New Year. So any comparisons showing CA's abject failure at containing the virus despite some of the harshest lockdown measures (while Florida performs similarly with a far older population) is just as valid in light of the holidays existing. CA's Covid measures were disastrous, adding economic misery on top of health misery for zero benefit. Don't let people distract us from that fact.
    - simonh 6y ago
      My apologies I thought I had been clear I mentioned I was talking about the case rate in the US generally has declined, not just CA.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
almost_usual 6y ago
We won’t know how bad it is for a couple months, feels too much like last year..
nobrains 6y ago
Well, if it is more deadly, the the article states "is associated with severe illness and death", then it will automatically bring down cases, as people die. The problem with Covid-19 (the original strain and also most of its variants) is that it is not THAT deadly, which results in hosts remaining alive, and transmitting on the disease. Yes, what I am saying above sounds counter-intuitive and even harsh, but this is the case. Long term, I see the more deadly variants dying off, and the less deadly variants remaining with us forever.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  > then it will automatically bring down cases, as people die. This would be true if it killed people quickly. But if it kills people slowly, then it is not necessarily true. AFAIK, there is no indication that it kills people more quickly than the other variants.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    I think it's less a problem of how quickly it kills people rather than how strong are the symptoms. And the strength of the symptoms I would assume is very correlated to its deadliness. What makes this virus travel very far is precisely the fact that it is not very deadly and that half the carriers don't even realise they had it.
- rurban 6y ago
  Exactly. The problem is exactly the "and is associated with severe illness and death, researchers said." Irresponsible. Those new mutations all have a much higher transmissibility rate because they cause much less severe harm, have a much higher asymptotic rate, ie go undetected, same as with kids spreading around the flu. The original variant can be compared to the common cold, but just with an IFR of 20%, whilst the common cold has an IFR of 8% against the target groups. (Elderly over 75, plus broken immunity system) The mutations go now against the common cold variants, the problem is really the extreme high R rate, naturally at around 3.5. You cannot stop that with lockdowns, only by protecting the target groups. We saw that this winter that the virus escapes all strict measures. Of course 3.5 is uncontrollable that way. That's what all experts said for a year. Vaccination helps a lot, protecting the elderly helps most, and less severe mutations (gradual degration) also help a lot reaching herd immunity. Eventually it goes to the common cold, just much more problematic for the old and ill. The 8% natural death rate for those with the common cold is big enough, the expected 10-15% even more, but no cause for hysteria. Cancer, heart deaths and traffic accidents are still far more problematic, more than by factor 10. All statistical measurements in areas with a high rate of mutations show that it's much less severe. In percent and in absolute numbers. Hospitalization goes down.
codeulike 6y ago
This article is irresponsible nonsense. The number of inaccuracies and errors are staggering, and the language utterly inadequate. The entire narrative is in variance with all the evidence available in the public domain at this stage. 1/ https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1364378646237110277?s=19 https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/13643786462371102... Prof Francois Balloux, director of UCL Genetics institute Edit: analysis of article by Jeffrey Barrett of the Sanger institute https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1364294846853308432?s=19 https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1364294846853308432?s=19 [L452R has been seen] over 150 times in the UK between October and now: 7 are B.1.427 or B.1.429, with the rest spanning 19 different lineages. This is a boring picture that shows we have seen this mutation several times but it has not grown ... It may be that something about the combination of mutations in B.1.427 and B.1.429 have different properties, and it may be that the upcoming pre-print has compelling data, but I don't think any conclusions can be drawn at present about this lineage based on press reports. 10/10
- cheph 6y ago
  > This article is irresponsible nonsense. Politics is a team sport and as long as you are on the right team that does not matter. You get to claim anything and you will get defended. The media contextualises blatant lies from Biden while they remove context from trump statements to make it seem like he was saying something he did not. Media fact checkers label (like snopes) entirely factual statements as misleading. It is disgusting. And to be clear, screw Trump, even if you are conservative (like me), you should not like him, he is the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative movement and his supporters are legit dangerous. But screw the media also.
skocznymroczny 6y ago
What a coincidence, as soon as some states are talking about reopening, a "new scary strain" appears.
- burnthrow 6y ago
  LA Times, which published the article, has been the worst about this. The headline ('"The Devil is Already Here"') is clickbait trash. Of course, this grave development is already off their front page: Tiger Woods was injured.
- chki 6y ago
  So you believe in some sort of conspiracy theory where the media and the government want to enact a strict lockdown because...? (of course "the" media and "the" government don't actually exist, but just for the sake of simplicity)
cm2187 6y ago
I thought it was racist to refer to a virus by the location it was first spotted...
dlazar 6y ago
> It also opens the door to a “nightmare scenario”: That the two viruses will meet in a single person, swap their mutations, and create an even more dangerous strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. How would that even work? This is an RNA virus: is there a meiosis-like mechanism for two different RNA viruses infecting the same cell to exchange genes?
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  Yes there is, see [1] for details. Either by reassortment or copy choice recombination if both virus variants infect the same cell. [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3324781/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3324781/

At minimum, everyone must wear a mask. No excuses.

aphroz 6y ago
Do we have proofs that it works or does it makes people feel safer ? What kind of masks (FFP1, FFP2) ?
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  There is evidence that it reduces transmission somewhat: probably not a lot, but even a few percent will have an impact. The best thing to do, mask or not, is avoid close contact with other people. Avoid crowds; maintain 2m distance; and so on. The advice has never been about protecting you or anyone else in particular, it is about reducing the transmission in the general population. With that goal in mind, small benefits can have a major impact overall.
- krono 6y ago
  If nothing else, it's a constant reminder to people that there's a serious problem going on that we need everyone's help with to fix. Just another while longer, hopefully.
- Arainach 6y ago
  Yes, masks work. The evidence has always been consistent on that. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 That we are still having this question raised after a year of the pandemic is embarrassing for humanity as a species.
  - timr 6y ago
    The only randomized controlled trial for masks and Covid-19 found no statistically significant protective effect. Jeremy Howard didn't even bother citing it in the review you're linking: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 The Howard review is, in general, of extremely low quality. The top-line conclusions of some of the cited articles are completely mis-interpreted, and the citations within are sloppy and misleading -- bold assertions are made without evidence, and the reader is led to assume that a leading/trailing citation provides support for the claim, when it does not. There are far better reviews of the available literature. Here is one: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-... The meta-study commissioned by the WHO is another: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... You'll note that they found a small positive effect for masks in the community, only when including and aggregating a large number of low-quality studies. They admit that the evidence base is weak. In general, there's a great deal of uncertainty around the effectiveness of masks in the hands of the general public. There may be a small positive effect, but we simply don't know. One of the biggest mistakes of this pandemic has been the political weaponization of this issue, and the exaggeration of certainty -- on both sides of the debate.
    - jasonvorhe 6y ago
      I'm pretty happy with how it was handled in Germany. Masks clearly aren't marketed as a perfect solution, but as a key element in a mix of other measures that are social distancing, work from home, leave home for necessities, keep your distance during visits to the supermarket, etc. I'm really surprised that masks turned out to be such a cause for drama. At the worst they caused discomfort, especially for people with big beards/prescription glasses, but if it turns out wearing masks helped just by a margin, isn't that already worth it, in the grand scheme of things? Isn't 1 live saved out of a 1000 already with the negatives? It just baffles me.
      - timr 6y ago
- ben_w 6y ago
  Yes, the have been peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate effectiveness: https://files.nc.gov/covid/documents/info-for/The-effectiveness-of-face-masks-to-prevent-SARS-CoV.pdf https://files.nc.gov/covid/documents/info-for/The-effectiven... All masks have some improvement over the absence of a mask. High-end masks have been mandatory in Berlin supermarkets for a while now.
- jasonvorhe 6y ago
  This gives a good overview over the current state of scientific research wrt mask usage in general: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 tl:dr: Some indicators point to masks being useful but the data isn't conclusive and a lot of other factors might impact the data (such as other covid-19 related measures that help in keeping infection rates low) but these two quotes should be sufficient reason to wear them: “There’s a lot more we would like to know,” says Vos, who contributed to the analysis. “But given that it is such a simple, low-cost intervention with potentially such a large impact, who would not want to use it?” It’s not the only solution, says Gandhi, “but I think it is a profoundly important pillar of pandemic control”. As Digard puts it: “Masks work, but they are not infallible. And, therefore, keep your distance.”
- Bancakes 6y ago
  Yeah some people have done simulations to show the spread of particles with and without a mask. That's enough for me, I trust physics over correlational statistics.
- tzs 6y ago
  If you have someone you live in close enough contact with that you are already going to be sharing any respiratory illnesses, you can do a simple experiment. Have them stand across the room from you, without wearing a mask, and have them cough at you. Then have them move a step closer and do it again. Note where you can first feel the cough. Then repeat but with them wearing a mask. You should find that they have to get much closer. Second experiment. Having them at the place they ended up after the first experiment, have them cough at you without their mask on. Not subjectively how much cough seems to have reached you. Now have them put on their mask, and repeatedly cough at you until you feel the same total amount of cough has reached you. You should find that it takes many more coughs on their part. For a virus that is expelled when you expel air and then sinks rather than lingering indefinitely anything that reduces the horizontal range of someone's expulsions, such as the above experiments demonstrate masks do, must decrease the number of viruses you will get from someone who is spreading it when you pass by them.
- aphroz 6y ago
  Can we still question things, genuinely ? I think the most harmful consequence in the long term will be how we will accept to follow orders without questioning it. I have read different articles saying that no measures have been proven efficient against COVID. I think that many countries will use the masks to make people feel safe and keep going to work. Asian countries have been testing and isolating, while western countries let people work even when they are sick, by using masks.
throwaway45349 6y ago
Some are medically exempt. This mask-or-else culture pushes those people out of society, totally unfairly.
- ChrisRR 6y ago
  No, It has been determined time and time again that if you have a respiratory illness that means you're struggling to breathe so much that you can't breathe with a mask on, that puts you in the extremely high risk category from covid The only legitimate reasons are associated with anxiety issues, which aren't medically exempt.
- mike_d 6y ago
  According to the chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, the only legitimate medical exemption is people who are on supplemental oxygen. Even patients with chronic lung disease can wear a non-N95 mask with no detrimental effects. The CDC does recognize intellectual and developmental disabilities as legitimate medical exemptions, which I believe is the most common case we are seeing the US.
ben_w 6y ago
On the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, saying it didn’t make it so for HIV and condoms. Policy must account for people not all doing the correct thing; for people who think it’s overblown or a conspiracy; etc.
- sep_field 6y ago
  Fines and jail time would be a start at correcting policy. Especially jail time for cops who refuse to wear masks.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Fines I agree with, thought I suspect jail would make things worse. Not just because jail is a health risk all by itself, but because compliance with the law depends on people collectively agreeing that the law is just, and excessive punishment does the opposite (or so I hear).
    - sep_field 6y ago
      yeah I think jail is best reserved for cops and politicians.

This virus just keeps on giving... more virulent (11 times higher chance of death than normal strain and higher icu rates), more transmissible. It's like Hollywood writers are writing our timeline now for dramatic effect. Maybe they need to upgrade it from covid-19 to covid-2021. At which point does a variant get a new version number?

cblconfederate 6y ago
If it is truly a strain and not a variant, it should get a new name
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  guess I'm just tired of the same name, maybe we just call it covid.. and strike the 19... since everything is a derivative/mutation and not wholly the same full strain, but I'm not a virologist by any measure.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    at some point scientists have to settle with the fact that it is now endemic. We don't call the flu 'flu-2021'
    - sep_field 6y ago
      we probably should though. The flu is different every year. Which is why we need new flu shots every year. Giving it a new name would help the public understand.
      - DiabloD3 6y ago
        That's bad thinking: the public doesn't want to understand. The public is what on HN would be called a "bad manager", and says crazy shit like "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions!" Curing the Flu is a solution. The public wants this, not a flu shot, no matter how impossible the task is. A flu shot every year is just band-aiding the problem, and redelivering said problem every year.

surfmike 6y ago

Odd that there’s no discussion of the fact that case counts are currently plummeting in California.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chki 6y ago
If a new variant emerges during a "recession" of the original variant, it will automatically hide within the high case numbers of the original variant.
simonh 6y ago
Well, obviously both can be true at the same time - the new strain can be more infectious but overall case counts can be under control due to more effective control measures and lockdown discipline. You're coming off a huge bloom in cases from the double holiday and New Year period in the US when a lot of people mixed over a period of a month or more. Maybe this strain explains the high prevalence of the disease in California despite relatively restrictive and early lockdown measures. Ive seen that cited several times here, relative to Florida, to argue that lockdowns don't make any difference.
- kenneth 6y ago
  Florida also celebrates Thanksgiving / Christmas / New Year. So any comparisons showing CA's abject failure at containing the virus despite some of the harshest lockdown measures (while Florida performs similarly with a far older population) is just as valid in light of the holidays existing. CA's Covid measures were disastrous, adding economic misery on top of health misery for zero benefit. Don't let people distract us from that fact.
  - simonh 6y ago
    My apologies I thought I had been clear I mentioned I was talking about the case rate in the US generally has declined, not just CA.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

almost_usual 6y ago

We won’t know how bad it is for a couple months, feels too much like last year..

nobrains 6y ago

Well, if it is more deadly, the the article states "is associated with severe illness and death", then it will automatically bring down cases, as people die. The problem with Covid-19 (the original strain and also most of its variants) is that it is not THAT deadly, which results in hosts remaining alive, and transmitting on the disease. Yes, what I am saying above sounds counter-intuitive and even harsh, but this is the case. Long term, I see the more deadly variants dying off, and the less deadly variants remaining with us forever.

gnicholas 6y ago
> then it will automatically bring down cases, as people die. This would be true if it killed people quickly. But if it kills people slowly, then it is not necessarily true. AFAIK, there is no indication that it kills people more quickly than the other variants.
- cm2187 6y ago
  I think it's less a problem of how quickly it kills people rather than how strong are the symptoms. And the strength of the symptoms I would assume is very correlated to its deadliness. What makes this virus travel very far is precisely the fact that it is not very deadly and that half the carriers don't even realise they had it.
rurban 6y ago
Exactly. The problem is exactly the "and is associated with severe illness and death, researchers said." Irresponsible. Those new mutations all have a much higher transmissibility rate because they cause much less severe harm, have a much higher asymptotic rate, ie go undetected, same as with kids spreading around the flu. The original variant can be compared to the common cold, but just with an IFR of 20%, whilst the common cold has an IFR of 8% against the target groups. (Elderly over 75, plus broken immunity system) The mutations go now against the common cold variants, the problem is really the extreme high R rate, naturally at around 3.5. You cannot stop that with lockdowns, only by protecting the target groups. We saw that this winter that the virus escapes all strict measures. Of course 3.5 is uncontrollable that way. That's what all experts said for a year. Vaccination helps a lot, protecting the elderly helps most, and less severe mutations (gradual degration) also help a lot reaching herd immunity. Eventually it goes to the common cold, just much more problematic for the old and ill. The 8% natural death rate for those with the common cold is big enough, the expected 10-15% even more, but no cause for hysteria. Cancer, heart deaths and traffic accidents are still far more problematic, more than by factor 10. All statistical measurements in areas with a high rate of mutations show that it's much less severe. In percent and in absolute numbers. Hospitalization goes down.

codeulike 6y ago

This article is irresponsible nonsense. The number of inaccuracies and errors are staggering, and the language utterly inadequate. The entire narrative is in variance with all the evidence available in the public domain at this stage. 1/ https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1364378646237110277?s=19 https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/13643786462371102... Prof Francois Balloux, director of UCL Genetics institute Edit: analysis of article by Jeffrey Barrett of the Sanger institute https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1364294846853308432?s=19 https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1364294846853308432?s=19 [L452R has been seen] over 150 times in the UK between October and now: 7 are B.1.427 or B.1.429, with the rest spanning 19 different lineages. This is a boring picture that shows we have seen this mutation several times but it has not grown ... It may be that something about the combination of mutations in B.1.427 and B.1.429 have different properties, and it may be that the upcoming pre-print has compelling data, but I don't think any conclusions can be drawn at present about this lineage based on press reports. 10/10

cheph 6y ago
> This article is irresponsible nonsense. Politics is a team sport and as long as you are on the right team that does not matter. You get to claim anything and you will get defended. The media contextualises blatant lies from Biden while they remove context from trump statements to make it seem like he was saying something he did not. Media fact checkers label (like snopes) entirely factual statements as misleading. It is disgusting. And to be clear, screw Trump, even if you are conservative (like me), you should not like him, he is the worst thing that could have happened to the conservative movement and his supporters are legit dangerous. But screw the media also.

skocznymroczny 6y ago

What a coincidence, as soon as some states are talking about reopening, a "new scary strain" appears.

burnthrow 6y ago
LA Times, which published the article, has been the worst about this. The headline ('"The Devil is Already Here"') is clickbait trash. Of course, this grave development is already off their front page: Tiger Woods was injured.
chki 6y ago
So you believe in some sort of conspiracy theory where the media and the government want to enact a strict lockdown because...? (of course "the" media and "the" government don't actually exist, but just for the sake of simplicity)

cm2187 6y ago

I thought it was racist to refer to a virus by the location it was first spotted...

dlazar 6y ago

> It also opens the door to a “nightmare scenario”: That the two viruses will meet in a single person, swap their mutations, and create an even more dangerous strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. How would that even work? This is an RNA virus: is there a meiosis-like mechanism for two different RNA viruses infecting the same cell to exchange genes?

MagnumOpus 6y ago
Yes there is, see [1] for details. Either by reassortment or copy choice recombination if both virus variants infect the same cell. [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3324781/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3324781/