New strain stuff.....

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/boris-johnson-calls-crisis-meeting-to-discuss-response-to-new-covid-strain

So,it's just a variant, nothing to see here, blah blah blah..... I'm pretty sanguine about this stuff but dropping this late at night as a headline right now..... I'm getting mightily pissed off with the uncertainty and the subtle fear mongering......

Any thoughts?

@Nc135 thank you, that’s made me feel calmer!

NeurotreeWenceslas
It's possible the virus has just found a way to be more contagious over and above our hygiene mitigations. That's how an evolution would work. As one more contagious mutation would naturally spread more easily.

Yes. This is called evolutionary pressure. The more advantageous mutations that arise at random survive.

However, there’s something potentially a little bit more complex going on here.

So many mutations in one go and the mutations tend to lead to changes in the amino acid, which we wouldn’t necessarily expect. One would expect a fair few mutations in genetic code to lead to no change in the amino whatsoever.

Not all mutations in genetic code lead to a change in the resulting amino acid.

Genes code for amino acids that make up proteins. Each amino acid is made from a code of three genes. But actually, more than one code can lead to the same amino acid.

For example the amino acid glutamate, which you’ve probably all heard of (and would be one bead in my necklace analogy), can be coded for by GAG or GAA. Some amino acids can be coded for by loads of different codes.

I read with interest this morning in the COG paper where they say:

“inferred nucleotide changes on this branch are predominantly amino acid-altering (14 non-synonymous mutations and 3 deletions). There are 6 synonymous mutations on the branch. This is suggestive of a process involving adaptive molecular evolution, although a role for increased fixation rates through relaxed selective constraint cannot be currently ruled out.”

You can test positive very shortly after infection (with results turn around is ok at the moment) but are unlikely to become ill enough to require hospitalisation until about 6-7 days in

Yes, are, but the lag is there, we have been seeing increased cases for a couple of weeks now, and the hospital admissions are not spiking the same way.

@Bluntness100

You can test positive very shortly after infection (with results turn around is ok at the moment) but are unlikely to become ill enough to require hospitalisation until about 6-7 days in

Yes, are, but the lag is there, we have been seeing increased cases for a couple of weeks now, and the hospital admissions are not spiking the same way.

Bluntness what’s the increase for older age groups? Is it around the same ie 10%?

Ie increase in cases for older age groups

I don’t know...but at a macro level you’d expect to see the same sort of spike in admissions, and it simoly isn’t there,

@everythingthelighttouches

neuro “It possible it lasts a little longer on surfaces for example. Or survives certain air conditions better.”

I really doubt it. There’s absolutely no evidence for that. Not even a “smoking gun” from the structural and cell data.

That would be changes in the proteins for the capsid or envelope of the virus and that’s a completely different part of the protein to the spike.

No. If this is more transmissible, it’s because whatever is there is better able to enter the cells in your upper airways.

Thanks for that explanation. Something to do with the Ace receptors then?

Bluntness
there are still only estimated 16430 cases of this new variant nationally, since September, which I think is a small proportion of total cases in the same period???

Neuro yes, binds the ACE2 much better ( higher affinity)

Thank you for your explanations, really helpful.

(And fascinating. In a previous life I did art and viruses featured in a gold patterned decorated piece. I've always found them fascinating. Clearly years ahead of my time tend wise!)

@Bluntness100

I don’t know...but at a macro level you’d expect to see the same sort of spike in admissions, and it simoly isn’t there,

Are you looking at the areas that have it? It's only got to 60% in the last few weeks in some localities. And possibly among those people less at risk and out in the community a lot (ie schools, younger workers with no risks)

No, I’ve not done it by location, I was simoly asking if anyone knew the answer,,

Thanks for the informative thread.

What's bothering me is what this all means for our strategy for dealing with the virus. We've all got used to the idea that if we constrain contacts sufficiently, we can hold the R rate below 1, and keep rates low until the vaccine gets rolled out. But this new strain changes everything. If the new variant is 40% more transmissible then even a lockdown like the first one isn't going to work - the R rate never got below about 0.8. We can clearly see that the second lockdown didn't appear to work in North Kent, and "stopped" working in London before it was lifted - ie as the new strain took off. People are tired now, and less compliant than in the spring. I just can't see how we can contain it this way. A return to shielding, opening up (and staffing) the nightingales and accepting that it will spread (albeit better if we can slow it down via continued distancing) seem to me the only possible way forward.

The focus seems to have been just in Christmas - but the implications of the new strain seem much more scary.

@Firefliess Matt Hancock all but confined that current Tier 4 areas ie those areas affected by new strain I think would remain at Tier 4 restrictions until "vaccine is rolled out" (Sophy Ridges words and he basically agreed). So that's a new strategy I suppose - extended period of tougher restrictions rather than rolling on and off as required. It was a good interview. I recommend watching it.

Does anyone know if I and right in saying that this is almost a good sign, I am sure I read that virus's don't like to kill people, so they often become more infectious, but less deadly.

It isn’t a good sign, or a bad sign really in the way that you mean it. Mutations happen to all viruses to this is just what is expected.

I haven’t read that this particular strain is any less virulent (but it also doesn’t appear to be any more virulent) than the one we’ve had most experience with. That information will come in time.

Thankyou, to everyone who has contributed on this thread.It's genuinely calming to read the explanations and follow the debate.

@TheRubyRedshoes I’d also wondered this - not about the mutation specifically, but generally. If it’s in the virus’s interest to spread then surely it’s not good for it to harm people too much? If they’re laid low they can’t spread it as much. Bear with me if I’m being stupid - I’m a humanities grad. But could it eventually mutate to become more like a common cold?

I don't think how it affects people has much influence on how it mutates.

Because it's most infectious the two days before any symptoms appear.

Would there be an advantage for a virus causing no or mild symptoms (like a cold causing coronavirus) for an extended period, whether or not it then became severe?

[quote PompomDahlia]@TheRubyRedshoes I’d also wondered this - not about the mutation specifically, but generally. If it’s in the virus’s interest to spread then surely it’s not good for it to harm people too much? If they’re laid low they can’t spread it as much. Bear with me if I’m being stupid - I’m a humanities grad. But could it eventually mutate to become more like a common cold?[/quote]
My completely uninformed guess is that it could mutate to become more like the common cold - which is often caused by a coronavirus - but that such changes would take a very long time. This virus has only been around a year, even if it feels like forever.

Hopefully someone more informed ca shed some light!

If it’s in the virus’s interest to spread then surely it’s not good for it to harm people too much? If they’re laid low they can’t spread it as much

As it can spread before the onset of symptoms, then it has already dealt with that issue. It can harm people as much as it likes after that - there's no incentive to become less harmful

Bear with me if I’m being stupid - I’m a humanities grad

The only stupid question is the one you don't ask

Thank you. Useful to know, though obviously not good news. I’m very grateful to people with scientific knowledge at the moment

Yes that’s the bugger about this virus. It is able to be transmitted whilst people are still asymptomatic. So as someone has said already that means that there is less evolutionary pressure for it to then do less damage to its host.

The virus is not a thinking organism, it just exists.

And outcome can depend - does depend - on the state of health (or genes particular to that individual - this is under investigation) of the infected person. The common cold can pass as a sniffle for one person yet another can be completely felled.