The different articles about the L and S types contradict themselves?
Yes I saw that.
The older S more aggressive type was more prevalent at first but declined in prevalence in late January according to reuters. 70% of cases found have been type S. But depending on what you read it also suggests that type L seems to be declining in numbers according to other articles.
I can't make head nor tale of it tbh.
I think the important bit here is that they only looked at 103 cases. And I don't know where those cases came from.
I have seen passing mention of information which seems to suggest two strains.
There was an article about the first Brasilian case and Brasilian and UK scientists had determined it had come from Europe as its genetic code was more similar to cases there.
I've also seen talk that the later cases in Washington closely matched the genetic code of the first known case in the state which had been found some weeks earlier in a patient who had travelled from China.
Theres also been talk, with nothing of substance to back it up, that the cases in Iran were particularly viralent. Which might suggest that the disease there possibly originates from the older strain (suggesting it may have been imported earlier rather than later).
But as I say I can't make head nor tail of the newspaper reports.
I think you have to conclude more than anything though that it's an extremely low quality study because it looked at such few cases. And therefore the only really thing you can get from it is that there are two strains and the newer one is less viralent. Information about prevalence is not really high enough to draw more conclusions at this point.