Stupid question about the new Coronavirus strain

[JovialNickname]

I know this is probably an idiot question so please don't pile on to tell me I'm a thicko

But is the reason (or part of the reason) that we have this new, more transmissible Covid strain, because of the measures we've put in place to stop the spread? Could it be the case that it has adapted to spread more easily precisely because of all the mask wearing and social distancing? Could it have evolved to overcome transmission difficulties in order to survive? Or is the emergence of more transmissible virus strains a usual thing.

It seems normal, flu virus changes every season.

It’s not an unreasonable question OP.

If we’d put absolutely no measures in place to minimise transmission and were leading our lives as per 2019 then this new more transmissible strain would still probably have achieved dominance because even in normal times we are in light contact with more people than we’re in close contact with. But it probably wouldn’t have happened as fast.

The mutation itself will be random, but the measures will suppress the 'population' of the old strains more then the new strain, so it will over time a greater proportion of the viruses in circulation will be the new strain.

There is no cause and effect relationship but our control measures will be more successful at controlling the original strains.
Viruses do mutate over time.

Thank you for your answers, that's really interesting. Thank you all

@ForeverBubblegum

The mutation itself will be random, but the measures will suppress the 'population' of the old strains more then the new strain, so it will over time a greater proportion of the viruses in circulation will be the new strain.

@ForeverBubblegum Is that in line with Darwinian theory then, a kind of survival of the fittest? Thank you for replying if you can, I'm genuinely interested.

Yes, effectively all the measures have changed the viruses environment, and the new strain is better suited to the environment we've created. This in turn effects the way it evolves (1 year to us is thousands of 'generations' of viruses).

So if we didn't know about transmission, and coughed in people's faces etc, all strains could transmit to 100% of contacts, so the proportion of each type would be static. However if with distancing and masks, the older stains only spread to 5% of contacts but the new one spreads to 20% (figgers made up), then the new strain will eventually become the most common.

I suppose an animal analogy would be if you had 100 rabbits, 50 brown and 50 albino (mutated 'strain') and let them to breed in a safe environment. All the rabbits would live and breed equally, so the resulting hundreds of rabbits would be roughly half albino and half brown. However if you changed the controled environment by adding some foxes (representing social distancing) they would reduce the rabbit population by eating them before they could breed. The white ones would be more visible so easier to hunt, so over a few generations a bigger proportion of the rabbits born would from brown parent rabbits.

The silver lining is that evolutionary success for the virus means spreading and multiplying, not necessarily killing people (to the virus that's just a side effect). Therefore if a strain mutates to be much more deadly, it probably won't become the dominant strain, because it needs it's host to live long enough to go out and infect others.

What Bubblegum said, but in addition I’d say that a mutation which made the virus more transmissible was always destined to win out in the end anyway because even in a normal environment with no deliberate social distancing it would have an advantage.

No. It’s more likely that it’s because we didn’t do enough to stop the spread.

The more a virus spreads and replicates, the more chance there is of a mutation. And the more mutations there are the more chance there is of there eventually being a mutation that gives the virus an advantage.

It’s not entirely a coincidence that the two problematic new mutations have popped up in the U.K. and SA which both have a horrific record on dealing with Covid and not in countries with more stringent measures where masks and SD are much better adhered to.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

No. It’s more likely that it’s because we didn’t do enough to stop the spread.

The more a virus spreads and replicates, the more chance there is of a mutation. And the more mutations there are the more chance there is of there eventually being a mutation that gives the virus an advantage.

It’s not entirely a coincidence that the two problematic new mutations have popped up in the U.K. and SA which both have a horrific record on dealing with Covid and not in countries with more stringent measures where masks and SD are much better adhered to.

This - scientists have been discussing exactly this.

True, every time a virus replicates, there is a small chance it will mutate so if less people had contracted covid, the population of viruses would be smaller, so mutation less likely. Although you could argue that it was just a matter of time. If we had taken no measures and let it run rampant, we would likely have had similar strains develop within a few months, whereas if measures were stricter (globally) then it might have taken years to mutate.

This is one reason I think we will need a worldwide vaccine program. Even if
we get to the point where we're all vaccinated and our lives are back to normal, every case anywhere has the potential to be the one that mutates to a vaccine resistant strain, then we could have this all over again in a few years time

Also viruses have a very small amount of genetic material, so any change is likely to have a big effect. Imagine you are making a spaghetti bologaise, with lots of ingredients. You change the oregano for basil, with no change in the resulting dish. This is mutations in humans. Now imagine you are making cheese on toast, with only two ingredients. if you change the cheese, you have make your dish totally different. This is virus mutation.

@Rafalsthekingsofclay france are not much behind us in numbers and italy , spain etc
A lot of europe is struggling even germany is seeing higher numbers now

That doesn’t necessarily mean it is the new variant though. At the moment we don’t have enough evidence to say and the old variant is still capable of causing rapid growth.

We’re going to need to wait for more comprehensive sequencing data.

The U.K. has done excellent work on sequencing and is in a good position to pick something like this up. But it isn’t the only European country doing genome sequencing.

Thankyou @ForeverBubblegum that is so interesting. Taking all the emotion out of it it's fascinating to understand how this virus spreads and replicates! Thank you to everyone that took the time to answer.

@FindHungrySamurai thank you too for your well informed and interesting replies.

Fascinating and informative thread, thanks all!