> For one, he says, there is only one known strain of the novel coronavirus -- the original one, SARS-CoV-2, first discovered in Wuhan. And, two, there's no evi

> For one, he says, there is only one known strain of the novel coronavirus -- the original one, SARS-CoV-2, first discovered in Wuhan. And, two, there's no evidence so far of a variant that can meaningfully evade vaccines, though there are several variants out there. This kind of misses the point: yes, the word "strain" is being used incorrectly. But there are certainly a number of different variants whose genomes differ from the parent Wuhan strain. At this point, there is no clear consensus that any of these variants of concern are phenotypically different enough from the parent strain to have earned being their own strain, especially given how stingy virologists have historically been when bestowing "strain" onto variants. There is however plenty of evidence that a number of antibodies for the parent strain have reduced neutralization against some VOCs, suggesting that some variants may be phenotypically different enough to warrant concern: * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33794143/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33794143/ * https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00222-1 https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00222-1 * https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.12.435194v2 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.12.435194v2 Despite this, the current evidence suggests that T-cell responses aren't negatively impacted: * https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.27.433180v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.27.433180v1 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33594378/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33594378/ At this point it is hard to say what that means, but the take-away of the article is a pretty weak one.