General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I am unaware of ANY vaccine produced that treated ANY Corona Virus ever... [View all]Celerity
(43,365 posts)I made it an OP and so few read it, whilst PANIC PANIC! bullshit alarmist posts (often unsourced or sourced from dodgy sites) were getting 50-100 recs and thousands of views.
Beware Overblown Claims of Coronavirus Strains
The Problem With Stories About Dangerous Coronavirus Mutations
Theres no clear evidence that the pandemic virus has evolved into significantly different formsand there probably wont be for months.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/05/coronavirus-strains-transmissible/611239/
As if the pandemic werent bad enough, on April 30, a team led by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory released a paper that purportedly described the emergence of a more transmissible form of the new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. This new form, the team wrote, began spreading in Europe in early February. Whenever it appeared in a new place, including the U.S., it rapidly rose to dominance. Its success, the team suggested, is likely due to a single mutation, which is now of urgent concern. The paper has not yet been formally published or reviewed by other scientists. But on May 5, the Los Angeles Times wrote about it, claiming that a now-dominant strain of the coronavirus could be more contagious than [the] original. That story quickly went
well
viral.
But the conclusions are overblown, says Lisa Gralinski of the University of North Carolina, who is one of the few scientists in the world who specializes in coronaviruses. To say that youve revealed the emergence of a more transmissible form of SARS-CoV-2 without ever actually testing it isnt the type of thing that makes me feel comfortable as a scientist. She and other virologists Ive spoken with who were not involved in the Los Alamos research agree that the papers claims are plausible, but not justified by the evidence it presents. More important, theyre not convinced different strains of the coronavirus exist at all.
We have evidence for one strain, says Brian Wasik at Cornell University. I would say theres just one, says Nathan Grubaugh at Yale School of Medicine. I think the majority of people studying [coronavirus genetics] wouldnt recognize more than one strain right now, says Charlotte Houldcroft at the University of Cambridge. Everyone else might be reasonably puzzled, given that news stories have repeatedly claimed there are two, or three, or even eight strains. This is yet another case of confusion in a crisis that seems riddled with them. Heres how to make sense of it. Whenever a virus infects a host, it makes new copies of itself, and it starts by duplicating its genes. But this process is sloppy, and the duplicates end up with errors. These are called mutationstheyre the genetic equivalent of typos. In comic books and other science fiction, mutations are always dramatic and consequential. In the real world, theyre a normal and usually mundane part of virology. Viruses naturally and gradually accumulate mutations as they spread.
As an epidemic progresses, the virus family tree grows new branches and twigsnew lineages that are characterized by differing sets of mutations. But a new lineage doesnt automatically count as a new strain. That term is usually reserved for a lineage that differs from its fellow viruses in significant ways. It might vary in how easily it spreads (transmissibility), its ability to cause disease (virulence), whether it is recognized by the immune system in the same way (antigenicity), or how vulnerable it is to medications (resistance). Some mutations affect these properties. Most do not, and are either silent or cosmetic. Not every mutation creates a different strain, says Grubaugh. (Think about dog breeds as equivalents of strains: A corgi is clearly different from a Great Dane, but a black-haired corgi is functionally the same as a brown-haired one, and wouldnt count as a separate breed.)
snip