[Atlantis]

Boris pictured himself as Churchill fighting the 4th Reich in his Brexit battle. What he didn't understand was that he had to fight the virus in British towns and cities and not on the beaches.

How a string of failures by the British government helped Covid-19 to mutate

During the first wave of Covid-19 in Britain, many scientists – myself included – said the government should be pursuing a “maximum suppression” or “zero Covid” strategy. One of the many reasons for this was to stop natural selection doing its work. When a virus is allowed to spread, spending time in different hosts, it evolves and mutates. Scientists have now found a “mutant” variant of the virus that causes Covid-19, which has 17 alterations to its genetic sequences, including changes in the spike protein that enables the virus to enter our cells.

Despite the warnings, the government’s strategy throughout the pandemic has been to slow the spread of the virus and reduce pressure on the NHS, rather than eliminating Covid altogether. As late as 13 March, Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) minutes recorded that “measures seeking to completely suppress [the] spread of Covid-19 will cause a second peak”. Advisers warned that countries such as China, where heavy suppression was already under way “will experience a second peak once measures are relaxed”. Instead of eliminating coronavirus, the logic seemed to be, Britain would learn to live with it.

Nine months later, China and South Korea have recorded three and 12 deaths per million people respectively. By contrast, based on the government data for deaths occurring within 28 days of a positive Covid test, the UK has recorded 970 deaths from Covid per million people.

Scientists only expected the virus that causes Covid-19 to undergo one to two mutations each month – but with an estimated 2 million people now infected with Covid in the UK, there are many more opportunities for the virus to mutate. The new variant seems to be accelerating transmission. Many have asked whether this will affect the efficacy of a vaccination programme – but this is something scientists could likely fix reasonably quickly by adjusting the RNA coding of the new vaccines. It’s not possible to tell yet whether the new variant of the virus will change the severity of Covid-19 in those who catch it.

What’s certain is that the greater the number of people who are infected, the more chance a virus has to evolve. The government rightly fears that a surge in cases in southern England, where transmission is worryingly high, will spread across the country, and EU member states have banned travel and limited freight from the UK in an attempt to stop the variant spreading. Measures to prevent the spread of Covid are much the same as before – restricting household mixing, social distancing, travel bans, rapid testing, contact tracing and isolation, face masks, hand hygiene and working from home. Workplaces and schools will remain shut over Christmas, and the tier 4 lockdown in London and the south-east should dampen the opportunities for infections. For now, the government’s priority should be scaling up vaccinations as quickly as possible, and offering proper support to those affected by lockdown and self-isolation measures.

But none of this was inevitable. The recent surge cannot be blamed on a mutant virus alone; in fact, government mismanagement of the pandemic meant that many more people became infected, creating the conditions for mutations to occur.

The failures of the government’s pandemic response are legion. An earlier lockdown by just one week in the spring could have halved the death rate, according to Nick Davies, a Sage adviser. Ministers wasted billions on outsourcing an allegedly “world-beating” test-and-trace system to private companies. It has failed to monitor rates of self-isolation and provided scant financial support to those asked to quarantine at home, relying on workers who don’t get sick pay, such as those in the gig economy, to isolate while losing wages. After Britain’s spring lockdown, infection rates fell, but the government again failed to do what was needed in time to suppress the virus.

The government’s poor control of Covid-19 has increased the force of the infection and allowed more mutations to happen. On top of the economic costs of lockdown measures, the UK has now been effectively placed in quarantine by the international community. The prime minister’s repeated dithering, delays and seeming inability to make unpopular decisions have led Britain to have one of the worst death rates in the world. We have now cancelled Christmas and triggered international alarm. We can only hope that we’re not still in this position by Easter.

Anthony Costello is professor of global health and sustainable development at University College London and a former director of maternal and child health at the WHO

Again, the virus mutated because it can easily spread due to insufficient Covid restrictions. What's so hard to understand about that?

As I mentioned before, the new South African strain may be both more infectious and more deadly.

South African variant may be worse than UK variant

This Africa Centre for Disease Control and Prevention website states that studies are underway to see if “higher viral loads” are associated with this variant, as well as “whether it causes more severe illness” (as only anecdotally reported so far), and if there is any impact on vaccine efficacy, antibody efficacy, or diagnostic test sensitivity. If any of these concerns are proven to be true in the coming days, then this variant could be worse than the UK variant. Some nations have already halted air traffic to and from South Africa, although fewer nations so far than have done so than for the UK.

[ness31]

Rugged individualism makes for ragged individuals.

Only for the individuals that lack common sense. Anyone with half a brain can understand how a coronavirus is transmitted.

Nope, authorities lost everyone’s trust from the beginning. One minute they're telling people masks are ineffective and the next they’re mandating them. What is this? Amateur hour?

[late]

Only for the individuals that lack common sense. Anyone with half a brain can understand how a coronavirus is transmitted.

Nope, authorities lost everyone’s trust from the beginning. One minute they're telling people masks are ineffective and the next they’re mandating them. What is this? Amateur hour?

It's adults.

[Rancid]

I want the new strain. Heard it tastes good.

[ingliz]

@Rancid

Only the best is good enough for you. And the South African strain is better. More virulent, more easily transmissible, and more likely to be resistant to the vaccines.

[Atlantis]

It is quite common for a mutation to make a disease less virulent.

You seem to be arguing that the virus has intent, when it's simply random mutations that only occasionally have an impact on us either way.

The sole purpose of the virus is to reproduce.

Evolutionary pressure can make a deadly virus less deadly so as to reproduce more easily. If the virus kills its host before reproduction, it defeats its purpose. Therefore, there is an evolutionary pressure for less deadly mutations to survive.

However, there is no evolutionary pressure to make SARS-CoV-2 less deadly because the virus already reproduces extraordinarily well. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 mostly reproduces in the first two weeks after infection, when it is most infectious, but people only die after 3 to 4 weeks. Consequently, whether a host dies or not has no impact on the virus' reproducibility.

Thus, there is no evolutionary pressure for less deadly mutations to emerge. It may stay the same or it may become more deadly. We don't know. What we do know is that it is a bad idea to let it reproduce freely (the Swedish model) because it'll mutate more rapidly.

[Atlantis]

Here is a BioNTech press conference in which the new British virus variant is also discussed. The press conference starts at 8:30.

https://player.admiralcloud.com/?v=20e3 ... dc43e6221d

One point the BioNTech CEO makes is that the new variant will probably mean that more people need to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity than previously assumed. Previously it was assumed that herd immunity could be reached by vaccinating 60-70% of the population. With the new variant it may have to be 80% or more. That'll make it harder to ignore the antivaxxers.

[Wolvenbear]

@B0ycey, the new variant did not mutate "because of the Covid restrictions." On the contrary, it has mutated because of exponential growth, which is due to a lack of Covid restrictions. Most half-measures like the lockdown-light they tried in Germany have shown to be insufficient for bringing infections down to manageable levels. That's why we are going into a hard lockdown in most countries in Europe.

The virus can mutate a little each time it is transmitted. Therefore, the more new infections, the more mutations we are going to get.

The UK variant doesn't seem to be more deadly. There are reports that the new variant from South Africa may be more deadly, but that's not certain at this point in time.

If a virus encounters an environment in which it can spread easily, there is no evolutionary pressure for it to become less fatal. The Spanish flu mutated to become more deadly during the 2nd wave because it had encountered an ideal environment for reproduction in the trenches and troop transports of WWI.

Thus, the more it spreads due to insufficient Covid restrictions, the greater the chances it'll mutate to become more infectious, more deadly, or make the current vaccines ineffective.

That's not how viruses work. They mutate due to external factors, not mere transmission.

Yet another case of the people being in favor of lockdowns having no clue what science is.

[Potemkin]

That's not how viruses work. They mutate due to external factors, not mere transmission.

Yet another case of the people being in favor of lockdowns having no clue what science is.

Viruses can only reproduce themselves by hijacking a host cell's genetic machinery. This means that they can only reproduce themselves during transmission. And amost all mutations occur as random errors during the replication of the virus' genetic code during reproduction inside the host cell. Therefore, they mutate due to transmission; the more often they are transmitted, the more often they can reproduce, and the more often they can reproduce, the more often random mutations can occur.

[Sivad]

Viruses can only reproduce themselves by hijacking a host cell's genetic machinery. This means that they can only reproduce themselves during transmission. And amost all mutations occur as random errors during the replication of the virus' genetic code during reproduction inside the host cell. Therefore, they mutate due to transmission; the more often they are transmitted, the more often they can reproduce, and the more often they can reproduce, the more often random mutations can occur.

Potemkin has defeated dangerous misinformation with popular science trivia. Way to go, Potemkin!

[B0ycey]

Viruses can only reproduce themselves by hijacking a host cell's genetic machinery. This means that they can only reproduce themselves during transmission. And amost all mutations occur as random errors during the replication of the virus' genetic code during reproduction inside the host cell. Therefore, they mutate due to transmission; the more often they are transmitted, the more often they can reproduce, and the more often they can reproduce, the more often random mutations can occur.

Your point is only relevant if you were halting transmission. During the last ten months, how many people have you met? Which means your point is irrelevant. Besides why is MSRA most commonly found in hospitals for you? Isn't that where the most antibiotics found? @Wolvenbear is completely right. And the WHO has taken note and are investigating whether the new strain is due to our behaviour. And like masks before it, my instinct is when it is right to declare it as such, they will reach the same conclusion anyone with half a brain can make. No need to read the same SA strain post again that only provides the summary people want you to read. Perhaps we can have the one where if only 70% of people wear masks we hadn't needed to go into lockdown at all. I liked that one. Because mask wearing is something you can police and is very effective without destroying society. Whereas lockdowns haven't worked and have perhaps made things far worse. They certainly have from an economic standpoint.

[Sivad]

Your point is only relevant if you were halting transmission. During the last ten months, how many people have you met? Which means your point is irrelevant. Besides why is it MSRA most commonly found in hospitals for you? Isn't that where the most antibiotics found? @Wolvenbear is completely right. And the WHO has taken note and are investigating whether the new strain is due to our behaviour. And like masks before it, my instinct is when it is right to declare it as such, they will reach the same conclusion anyone with half a brain can make. No need to read the same SA strain post again that only provides the summary people want you to read. Perhaps we can have the one where if only 70% of people wear masks we hadn't needed to go into lockdown at all. I liked that one. Because mask wearing is something you can police and is very effective without destroying society. Whereas lockdowns haven't worked and have perhaps made things far worse. They certainly have from an economic standpoint.

B0cey is among pofo's best and brightest.

[Atlantis]

That's not how viruses work. They mutate due to external factors, not mere transmission.

Yet another case of the people being in favor of lockdowns having no clue what science is.

The virus mutates because it spread easily due to "external factors" such as insufficient containment measures. The mutation has higher transmissibility. The science is clear.

The problem with your conspiracy theories is that you can't manage to be consistent even in a two-line post.

[Atlantis]

I'm sure the conspiracy theorists here don't care about the science, but just for the record, other than the greater spread, the virus likely mutated in the UK because of Covid patients who had to be treated for a long period of time and who were given different treatments, which caused the virus to mutate. Normally, the virus only mutates in one position before being transmitted. When a patient has to be treated for a long time, several mutations can occur in the same host, which can lead to a new variant.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

There's a lot of people here determined to get the new variant to prove their pet theory, and pushing "it mutated because..." far more than mutation and natural selection justify.

It mutated "because" the copying mechanism is imperfect. Viral (and bacterial, and eukaryotic) reproduction does this all the time. The random mutations that have now turned up happen to mean the varient transmits more easily. Lockdown cut the transmission of the old variant. It's simply wrong to say "lockdowns haven't worked"; they worked in April, and they worked in November, cutting the cases of the old variant; they held the transmission of the new one steady in November, but it exploded once lockdown was over:



This did not happen "because" people were treated a long time, or there were lockdowns, or there weren't lockdowns.

[Potemkin]

Potemkin has defeated dangerous misinformation with popular science trivia. Way to go, Potemkin!

Thanks @Sivad! I pride myself on my command of popular science trivia.

[Wolvenbear]

Viruses can only reproduce themselves by hijacking a host cell's genetic machinery. This means that they can only reproduce themselves during transmission. And amost all mutations occur as random errors during the replication of the virus' genetic code during reproduction inside the host cell. Therefore, they mutate due to transmission; the more often they are transmitted, the more often they can reproduce, and the more often they can reproduce, the more often random mutations can occur.

While I still stand behind my point, I feel I was less than clear in what I was arguing. I should not have said viruses ONLY mutate in response to external stimuli, that was an error on my part. Rather, the only mutations that truly matter for humans are the ones that viruses make to evade human immune systems. https://www.scotsman.com/health/coronav ... ad-3076550

You are correct that mutations are possible everytime that a virus reproduces. Those mutations, however, really aren't important for the most part. Covid seems less mutable than most viruses though.

The virus mutates because it spread easily due to "external factors" such as insufficient containment measures. The mutation has higher transmissibility. The science is clear.

The problem with your conspiracy theories is that you can't manage to be consistent even in a two-line post.

We have instituted the most severe "containment measures" known to human kind over covid. So your argument is wrong.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never read a single covid study. Most pro-lockdown types haven't. I've read hundreds. This probably isn't a battle you want to pick. You will lose it.

[quote="Prosthetic Conscience"] Lockdown cut the transmission of the old variant. It's simply wrong to say "lockdowns haven't worked"; they worked in April, and they worked in November, cutting the cases of the old variant; they held the transmission of the new one steady in November, but it exploded once lockdown was over:



The numbers in the US didn't jump until lockdown had been instituted for almost 6 weeks. There is no argument that can be advanced that "lockdown worked", when cases dramatically increased in that time period.

But except for the basic facts and all....

[Potemkin]

While I still stand behind my point, I feel I was less than clear in what I was arguing. I should not have said viruses ONLY mutate in response to external stimuli, that was an error on my part. Rather, the only mutations that truly matter for humans are the ones that viruses make to evade human immune systems. https://www.scotsman.com/health/coronav ... ad-3076550

You are correct that mutations are possible everytime that a virus reproduces. Those mutations, however, really aren't important for the most part. Covid seems less mutable than most viruses though.

As the newspaper article pointed out, the overwhelming majority of mutations occur during the replication of the virus's genome inside the host cell. The more opportunities it has for transmission, therefore, the more often it will reproduce itself and the more likely it becomes that a mutation will occur to make the virus either more transmissible or more virulent. @Atlantis was therefore surely correct in suggesting that allowing the virus to spread unrestricted is probably a very bad idea, as it will make the appearance of new and more dangerous strains more likely.

[Rancid]

As the newspaper article pointed out, the overwhelming majority of mutations occur during the replication of the virus's genome inside the host cell. The more opportunities it has for transmission, therefore, the more often it will reproduce itself and the more likely it becomes that a mutation will occur to make the virus either more transmissible or more virulent. @Atlantis was therefore surely correct in suggesting that allowing the virus to spread unrestricted is probably a very bad idea, as it will make the appearance of new and more dangerous strains more likely.

Indeed, mutations are basically random, and thus you want fewer replications to make sure a really bad mutation occurs.

That said, historically, viruses (eventually) mutate towards being less virulent. How does that happen?

[XogGyux]

Indeed, mutations are basically random, and thus you want fewer replications to make sure a really bad mutation occurs.

That said, historically, viruses (eventually) mutate towards being less virulent. How does that happen?

Not saying that you are, but many people make the mistake that living organisms mutate with specific goals in mind. They might "wrongfully intuitively" assume that pathogen might mutate into a super bug that kills everything. As a general rule, it is disadvantageous to kill the host that is helping spread your offsprings so we see that more "successful" diseases such as the flu, are not super deadly but they spread very efficiently. That does not mean that spreading is something that will "always" benefit the pathogen, in many cases spreading means having ways of "tricking" the inmune system. For a virus, this might increase complexity (and complexity is not something you want if you lack all the proofreading and error-fixing machinery that most other complex organisms have). The result is, that there is a law of diminishing returns acting upon this.

Now... perhaps the most important part... is the "I told you so" factor. The naysayers that in february, march, april were crying "this will be over soon" or ignored the warnings about winter being worse, the holiday times being a disaster for spreading this thing, mutations.... The real question that I have is.. what is the number? What is the number of times that these people are going to be wrong, that after reaching "that number" they will realize that their "world" view is just wrong, they cannot even reasonably express what they expect for the relatively "near future". Seriously. Many of us "predicted" this.... not because we hold crystal balls that are magical, and certainly not because we were trying to make this "future" a reality (certainly I was not)... but rather because it was obvious, we were seeing being built and we could see the final product.