New variants
Posted: March 19th, 2021, 12:42 am
Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums
https://lemonfool.co.uk/
One of admittedly a very large number of theories(*) about why South Africa hasn't been as catastrophically badly affected by this pandemic as some feared given the cramped conditions in the townships and the high incidence of things like diabetes & TB is that exposure to previous novel viruses might have given the population some level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 where the original SARS virus is one such previous novel virus often cited. The above is suggesting that antibodies generated due to a SARS-CoV-2 infection might also work against SARS so it isn't too much of a leap to imagine that antibodies generated due to a SARS infection might indeed still be at least partially protective against SARS-CoV-2. The paper is of course not addressing it that way round at all but maybe offers some encouragement that people supporting that explanation might be on to something.A recent preprint (a study that is yet to undergo peer review) also found that some antibodies present six months after infection were starting to be able to recognise related, but entirely distinct viruses, such as the coronavirus that causes Sars.
South Africa has the worst record in all Africa and at over 800 deaths per million population is hardly getting away lightly. This may be less interesting than the other theories though.Julian wrote:Interesting. As well as protection against potential new variants I see it says...
One of admittedly a very large number of theories(*) about why South Africa hasn't been as catastrophically badly affected by this pandemic as some feared given the cramped conditions in the townships and the high incidence of things like diabetes & TB is that exposure to previous novel viruses might have given the population some level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 where the original SARS virus is one such previous novel virus often cited. The above is suggesting that antibodies generated due to a SARS-CoV-2 infection might also work against SARS so it isn't too much of a leap to imagine that antibodies generated due to a SARS infection might indeed still be at least partially protective against SARS-CoV-2. The paper is of course not addressing it that way round at all but maybe offers some encouragement that people supporting that explanation might be on to something.A recent preprint (a study that is yet to undergo peer review) also found that some antibodies present six months after infection were starting to be able to recognise related, but entirely distinct viruses, such as the coronavirus that causes Sars.
It would be really interesting to see equivalent practical (presumably in-vitro) research on whether SARS antibodies do have residual effect against SARS-CoV-2. I know that's looking backwards and not forwards but the more we can use this pandemic to advance our understanding of the immune system in general the better prepared we will be for any future pandemics.
- Julian
(*) And one of the less exciting theories is simply that the in-country data collection isn't good enough and the statistics being reported aren't catching all Covid-19 deaths.
Oh dear! That doesn't inspire confidence. At least, not with me.zico wrote:Dr. John Lee is attracting a lot of attention for a recent article in the Mail arguing that lockdown is a cure worse than the disease.
Here's an interesting article he wrote for the Spectator in May 2020
There goes that 5000,000 "prediction" again - Whoosh!Lockdown was enacted on a prediction of 500,000 deaths in the UK, rapidly reduced to 250,000 and then to 20,000.
Um... even "40,000"? We should be so lucky.But even if you assume 40,000 Covid deaths, its death toll is in the same ballpark as diseases we live with, not something so extraordinary as to justify the lockdown reaction.
Now where have I heard that "driven by modelling" critique before? Oh yes - Global Warming deniers.2. The policy response to the virus has been driven by modelling of Covid – not other factors
I wonder how he now explains the current Kent variety?zico wrote:... arguing that lockdown could make the virus more deadly, because it stops viruses mutating, and he argues that milder versions of Covid will be more likely to spread.
1. Oh that "herd immunity" 'thing' again... (Well it was still May 2020)zico wrote: He also argues that vaccination are very unlikely to provide a way out of lockdown because mutations will be resistant to any vaccine developed, so he prefers attempts to reach "herd immunity" without vaccination.
Oh, that's easily explained: it's a natural response to lockdown. As posted here.XFool wrote: I wonder how he now explains the current Kent variety?
Right. But, unfortunately - quoting zico - Lee's argument was that lockdown stopped the virus mutating...UncleEbenezer wrote:Oh, that's easily explained: it's a natural response to lockdown. As posted here.XFool wrote: I wonder how he now explains the current Kent variety?
Not wishing to take either side here, but maybe he can indeed. Lockdown - or more accurately social distancing - creates an environment in which there may be fewer mutations, but much stronger natural selection in favour of those that can most easily (in a metaphorical sense) jump two metres.XFool wrote:Right. But, unfortunately - quoting zico - Lee's argument was that lockdown stopped the virus mutating...UncleEbenezer wrote: Oh, that's easily explained: it's a natural response to lockdown. As posted here.
Can't have it both ways. Then again, maybe he can.
Um. Perhaps. To my mind, more convincing sounding is still: More spread, more cases. More cases more viruses. More viruses more mutations.UncleEbenezer wrote:Not wishing to take either side here, but maybe he can indeed. Lockdown - or more accurately social distancing - creates an environment in which there may be fewer mutations, but much stronger natural selection in favour of those that can most easily (in a metaphorical sense) jump two metres.XFool wrote:Right. But, unfortunately - quoting zico - Lee's argument was that lockdown stopped the virus mutating...
Can't have it both ways. Then again, maybe he can.
But the point is from an evolutionary perspective if you limit the conditions, such as by reducing, or increasing, distance between potential carriers, then the mutants that can be created, and survive, are the ones that are better suited to "jump" that distance (regardless of other factors).XFool wrote:Um. Perhaps. To my mind, more convincing sounding is still: More spread, more cases. More cases more viruses. More viruses more mutations.UncleEbenezer wrote: Not wishing to take either side here, but maybe he can indeed. Lockdown - or more accurately social distancing - creates an environment in which there may be fewer mutations, but much stronger natural selection in favour of those that can most easily (in a metaphorical sense) jump two metres.
But don't the mutations just happen (at duplication/reproduction)? The more mutations, the more there are to select from. Surely the outside environment effectively selects the viable mutations, it doesn't create them - leaving aside chemicals/radiation.dealtn wrote:But the point is from an evolutionary perspective if you limit the conditions, such as by reducing, or increasing, distance between potential carriers, then the mutants that can be created, and survive, are the ones that are better suited to "jump" that distance (regardless of other factors).XFool wrote: Um. Perhaps. To my mind, more convincing sounding is still: More spread, more cases. More cases more viruses. More viruses more mutations.
More infected people give more opportunities for mutations. That's a compelling argument for me.XFool wrote:But don't the mutations just happen (at duplication/reproduction)? The more mutations, the more there are to select from. Surely the outside environment effectively selects the viable mutations, it doesn't create them - leaving aside chemicals/radiation.dealtn wrote: But the point is from an evolutionary perspective if you limit the conditions, such as by reducing, or increasing, distance between potential carriers, then the mutants that can be created, and survive, are the ones that are better suited to "jump" that distance (regardless of other factors).
"create, and survive" is what I said.XFool wrote:But don't the mutations just happen (at duplication/reproduction)? The more mutations, the more there are to select from. Surely the outside environment effectively selects the viable mutations, it doesn't create them - leaving aside chemicals/radiation.dealtn wrote: But the point is from an evolutionary perspective if you limit the conditions, such as by reducing, or increasing, distance between potential carriers, then the mutants that can be created, and survive, are the ones that are better suited to "jump" that distance (regardless of other factors).
This is genetics. Perhaps read something such as The Selfish Gene. Genes don't rely on "intelligence" in the sense you are describing.zico wrote:More infected people give more opportunities for mutations. That's a compelling argument for me.XFool wrote: But don't the mutations just happen (at duplication/reproduction)? The more mutations, the more there are to select from. Surely the outside environment effectively selects the viable mutations, it doesn't create them - leaving aside chemicals/radiation.
The point about this virus is that if we take measures to stop the spread, we're less likely to get mutations, so the vaccines against the original Wuhan variant are much more likely to be able to polish off all Covid cases.
The problem with an argument that (for example) having 2 metre social distancing forces the vaccine to evolve to jump 5 metres or more, is that viruses don't work like that - they're not actually intelligent.
If they were, then the polio virus would have arranged a conference between its main strain and any variants, to discuss the threat of the polio vaccine, and worked out exactly how to mutate to stop the polio vaccine killing it off. But the virus wasn't an intelligent entity capable of forward planning, so it just got wiped out.
Sounds like crossed wires a bit?dealtn wrote:This is genetics. Perhaps read something such as The Selfish Gene. Genes don't rely on "intelligence" in the sense you are describing.zico wrote: More infected people give more opportunities for mutations. That's a compelling argument for me.
The point about this virus is that if we take measures to stop the spread, we're less likely to get mutations, so the vaccines against the original Wuhan variant are much more likely to be able to polish off all Covid cases.
The problem with an argument that (for example) having 2 metre social distancing forces the vaccine to evolve to jump 5 metres or more, is that viruses don't work like that - they're not actually intelligent.
If they were, then the polio virus would have arranged a conference between its main strain and any variants, to discuss the threat of the polio vaccine, and worked out exactly how to mutate to stop the polio vaccine killing it off. But the virus wasn't an intelligent entity capable of forward planning, so it just got wiped out.
You are absolutely right. The more there is of "it" the more the chances of mutations, and potential nasty ones at that. I am not disputing that in any way. All I have added is that the likely mutations that succeed will be the ones best suited to the environment.
So you might have less variation, but an extremely successful one at "large distance transmission" between people coming to dominate, were lockdown "working". You would also likely have much less of "it around" and presumably we all agree that's a good thing. I am making no claim that having no lockdown would have been better, only that potentially different variations and mutations will exist and survive under different environments.
Hang on, the 3 main variants of concern - Kent (UK), South Africa, Brazil. (Your RSA is presumably Republic of South Africa).9873210 wrote:Re: effective lockdowns create mutations.
This is why the variants of concern are named after Melbourne, Canberra and Auckland, rather than Brazil, California, UK or RSA.
![]()
![]()