7 ms·
Whenever you hear news about mutated COVID and how fast it spreads there are a few important things to remember. 1. Viruses are constantly mutating, its kind o
by wnevets 5y ago
Whenever you hear news about mutated COVID and how fast it spreads there are a few important things to remember.
1. Viruses are constantly mutating, its kind of their thing.
2. Most mutations do absolutely nothing or are actually harmful to the virus.
3. When a new mutation is noted to be spreading fast its usually because of the nature of super spreader events and not because the new mutation is more or less transmissible.
4. Scientist and health officials should absolutely be keeping an eye on these things.
[0] Vincent Racaniello - SARS-CoV-2 UK variant: Does it matter
https://youtu.be/wC8ObD2W4Rk https://youtu.be/wC8ObD2W4Rk
- bserge 5y ago5. "News" companies should be heavily fined for every sensationalist bullshit headline they write. If you don't agree based on this one, remember this is the same media that regularly questioned mRNA vaccine safety for fucking months when it was announced, even as people with actual knowledge were explaining how it actually works.
- bhouston 5y ago> 3. When a new mutation is noted to be spreading fast its usually because of the nature of super spreader events and not because the new mutation is more or less transmissible. Mostly true but in some very major cases it was because the variant did spread faster in general. Such as Delta and the British variant before hand.
- ummonk 5y agoYeah by the time fast spreading variants get picked up by the press, they usually are indeed more transmissible, rather than merely founder effects / super spreader events. We've seen this time and time again to the point that the rational evaluation is to assume the new variant is indeed more transmissible. Especially for this variant which is overtaking Delta so quickly that it can't really be explained by super spreader events.
- tinus_hn 5y agoIf such a variant was not spreading faster, how would it ever become a dominant new strain? Just because of some unlucky incident on the other side of the world?
- bhouston 5y agoI think the initial fast spread can be incidental, a super spreader event. But if it has lasting ability to displace other variants, especially across multiple countries, then it is likely just easier to spread. Basically superspreader events can artificially boost a variant for a bit -- it is basically noise. You need to look at a longer time frame to be sure.
- prox 5y agoWasn’t there also some kind of watchlist where they track up to 7000 mutations in a given timeframe? Probably just minor mutations, but still.
- jsnell 5y agoBut Vince from YouTube was of course completely wrong there. At the time they recorded that video, there was overwhelming evidence that the Alpha variant was more transmissive. It was astronomically unlikely that it could have been explained by a founder effect or individual super-spreader events. Unsurprisingly, the evidence was correct while the uninformed pattern-matching from a non-epidemiologist was wrong. For this new variant it could still plausibly be a founder effect. But that's because the circumstances are different this time (the variant became dominant while cases were surging from almost nothing, not when the cases were already at a high level). Not because that checklist is actually correct.
- wnevets 5y ago> But Vince from YouTube was of course completely wrong there. Claiming Vince was wrong in the video also means the researchers that discovered the variant were wrong. After all he was just parroting their findings in the video.
- lozenge 5y agoThis article was on the same day as your YouTube video and paints a very different picture. So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/21/calls-for-national-lockdown-in-england-to-curb-spread-of-new-covid-strain https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/21/calls-for-n...
- cinntaile 5y agoVincent Racaniello is a professor of virology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello
- spiderice 5y agoSo Vincent wasn't wrong, because he was just parroting the experts.. but Vincent is the expert? Am I understanding the logic correctly?
- tamaharbor 5y agoDoes the flu virus mutate every year?
- LudwigNagasena 5y agoYeah, that’s why people take a shot every year.
- Eelongate 5y agoAlso why many people don't take it at all. Not worth the constant hassle for something that doesn't bother me in the first place. Flu shot efficacy is usually in the gutter anyway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Effectivenes...).
- discordance 5y agoIf taking a quick and harmless shot every year gives me up to a ~40% chance of avoiding disease then I’m good with that. Definitely a better outcome than not getting a flu shot.
- dekhn 5y agowhen I get the flu shot I typically spend a week with a non-functioning arm and feeling like I'm very sick. However, I still get flu vaccination because it seems likely that this maximizes the overall health of humanity, and I'm more interested in the health of humanity than my own, in the long term.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoGood that you get the shot, but I'll just note that the symptom you describe is far worse than most people who get the flu shot. Most years I get it I have no symptoms at all besides slight arm soreness. Maybe one in five years I have a mild fever for a day.
- 5y ago
- thelittleone 5y agoViruses sure fail fast, truly fascinating. Tirelessly mutating to spread and (I assume) survive. Do they serve as purely a "cleaning" function of nature, restoring balance... or do they seek global domination... even if it means destroying the host organisms they depend upon? Are they simply mindless, unintelligent organic micro programs or do they have some kind of plan?
- wincy 5y agoThey’re the paperclip maximizers of the animal kingdom. All a virus does is make more of itself. If it does, there’s more, if not, it goes extinct. They do it sloppy and mutate. If it does the thing better, there’s more of the new thing. If not, that new thing goes extinct. Once that’s been happening for billions of years some parts of these viruses will look pretty clever.
- niels_bom 5y agoIsn’t the difference with AI that viruses don’t have a “final goal” baked into them? I think the process that you’re describing is the process of genetically evolving-by-mutation life forms in general. So not specific to viruses. Human bodies are the vehicles for our genes to survive and reproduce :-)
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago"Goal" kinda invokes intentionality, which can't exist at the size viruses are. (Of course it's an open question whether it exists at all but let's leave that aside.) Viruses don't have goals. If a virus successfully makes more virus, then there is more of the virus. For viruses that don't do that, there are less of them. That's all there is to it. It so happens that making more virus often requires resources that were previously in use by other organisms. But that's incidental, not by design. You only see viruses that are good at making more virus because the other ones died out.
- thelittleone 5y ago
- verisimi 5y agoI think you're missing the point. As a media event, you need the drama so that you are able to run the script you have planned.
- erhk 5y agoIts know that most viruses trend towards increased transmissibility and decreased lethality. Killing your host is an awful strategy for continued existence if you don't have your own lipid bilayer.
- gls2ro 5y agoI am not a virologist but it sounds to me that this is an observation and not a law/axiom. The virus does not decide a strategy, it is random mutation and selection and even if it is less likely it might be that we could have a variant that is super transmissible and super deadly. This effect could be obtain in the delay between transmission and visible effects on human body. Example: virus is transmissible with N days before we can see signs of infection. Of course we can fight back by testing everyone weekly even if they show no signs.
- erhk 5y agoMutations which improve transmission and longetivity will, in general, become more prevalent. Proliferation begets proliferation. You cannot transmit a strain if you are at home in bed from its severity. Help me understand how a virus can replicate without being detected but can also increase its lethality. We already have an asymptomatic and infectious incubation period. If that kept stretching longer then you are delaying the lytic cycle even longer? Or does propogation and ultimately viral load also happen as a slower burn? Eventually you will have damaged too many cells.
- gls2ro 5y agoI said “visible effects” which is different than detecting a virus in human body. That mean pre-symptomatic transmission. I am not up to date with latest research but it seemed to be that SARS-CoV-2 is a virus that can be transmitted before symptoms onset. Regarding replication without being detected but also increased lethality this you might be right that doing the math maybe the hypothesis I present seems far fetched. Still I guess that a slight bump in mortality will create a lot of deaths due to its transmission. Of course like I said I am just expressing an opinion that might be very wrong.