The Metro article is a very poor one. (I would never trust any of Metro's info outright.) Follow instead the LA Times link cited in the Metro article, which provides a much more complete and critical overview:
The point of the post was to contrast the headlines. Maybe I should hve used the LA Times hed: Scientists say a now-dominant strain of the coronavirus could be more contagious than original. It makes the point even mre, shall we say, pointed.
I cannot read the Daily Mail article. But I check the preprints at BioRxiv every day and the virus has indeed mutated. Here's one from today: Global genetic diversity patterns and transmissions of SARS-CoV-2. You can download the pdf to get the whole report. The link is off to the right.
While perusing the pre-prints, after reading Lee's comment, we get closer to the current science than what any journalist would report. Conversation then takes over, as well as lay speculation.
How about this excerpt, though: "This research has a range of very important implications. Some countries have announced the aim of pursuing herd immunity with regards to COVID-19 in the absence of a vaccination. The aggregated IFR would suggest that, at a minimum, you would expect 0.45-0.53% of a population to die before the herd immunity threshold of the disease (based on R0 of 2.5-3 (17)) was reached. As an example, in the United States this would imply more than 1 million deaths at the lower end of the scale."
"Excess all-cause mortality exceeding the number of reported COVID-19 deaths is evident in many high-COVID-19 states; in New York State, deaths associated with COVID-19 appear to be twice as high as reported. Greater test availability, including postmortem tests, can yield more accurate mortality counts and case-fatality ratios, and increase the public’s willingness to adhere to nonpharmaceutical interventions to reduce transmission."
Perhaps this will help: SARS-COV-2 HAS NOT MUTATED INTO DIFFERENT TYPES, NEW RESEARCH CONFIRMS. That is from Glasgow University's University News. Again, the point of the post was show how this is playing out in the media. One day this, next day that.
Yes, I agree. A past day search shows that there are articles which seem to assert one or the other -- at least in the headlines. How to cut through the BS? Dunno. Maybe like so . . .
Here is a Guardian survey Will Covid-19 mutate into a more dangerous virus?, which stays in the question. It refers to the pre-print from April 29 that the Metro News leaned on, and adds another from the same date. There is this qualifier: "While that is possible [that some mutations are more dangerous], other scientists believe it is too early to know whether any of the mutations are helping the virus thrive."
The Glasgow study was published on April 30, only a day after the other two, and with a different title than the copy editor chose: No evidence for distinct types in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2. There's not enough time for Glasgow to be a refutation, as such, of the other two. Here is a quote from the pdf:
"It is, however, important to appreciate that finding a majority of samples with a particular mutation is not evidence that viruses with that mutation transmit more readily. To make this suggestion would, at the very minimum, require a comparison to be made to expectations under a null distribution assuming equal transmission rates. As this has not been performed by the authors, there is insufficient evidence to make this suggestion, and therefore it is incorrect (and, we would argue, irresponsible) to state that there is any difference in transmission rates."
Here we have an editorial difference of opinion from the researchers, on what should and should not be "reported". Glasgow seems to be saying, "I see what you're up to, and maybe after peer review it'll turn out that you've been onto something all along, but don't go telling any lay people, not the divisive media." But the covid-19 preprints are public now, as a service.
The Metro article is a very poor one. (I would never trust any of Metro's info outright.) Follow instead the LA Times link cited in the Metro article, which provides a much more complete and critical overview:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-05/mutant-coronavirus-has-emerged-more-contagious-than-original
The point of the post was to contrast the headlines. Maybe I should hve used the LA Times hed: Scientists say a now-dominant strain of the coronavirus could be more contagious than original. It makes the point even mre, shall we say, pointed.
DeleteI cannot read the Daily Mail article. But I check the preprints at BioRxiv every day and the virus has indeed mutated. Here's one from today: Global genetic diversity patterns and transmissions of SARS-CoV-2. You can download the pdf to get the whole report. The link is off to the right.
ReplyDeleteWhile perusing the pre-prints, after reading Lee's comment, we get closer to the current science than what any journalist would report. Conversation then takes over, as well as lay speculation.
Another look at the pre-prints today yields this report: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates. What I do not find is that any allowance was made for mutations in different countries.
How about this excerpt, though: "This research has a range of very important implications. Some countries have announced the aim of pursuing herd immunity with regards to COVID-19 in the absence of a vaccination. The aggregated IFR would suggest that, at a minimum, you would expect 0.45-0.53% of a population to die before the herd immunity threshold of the disease (based on R0 of 2.5-3 (17)) was reached. As an example, in the United States this would imply more than 1 million deaths at the lower end of the scale."
With that, how do we then factor in this pre-print: Estimating Excess Deaths in the United States early in the COVID-19 Pandemic, with these Conclusions:
"Excess all-cause mortality exceeding the number of reported COVID-19 deaths is evident in many high-COVID-19 states; in New York State, deaths associated with COVID-19 appear to be twice as high as reported. Greater test availability, including postmortem tests, can yield more accurate mortality counts and case-fatality ratios, and increase the public’s willingness to adhere to nonpharmaceutical interventions to reduce transmission."
Whatever comes of these strains, there is hope coming from Brigham and Women's Hospital: Building on Dermatology’s Legacy to Develop a Universal Coronavirus Vaccine. A vaccine to fight them all.
Perhaps this will help: SARS-COV-2 HAS NOT MUTATED INTO DIFFERENT TYPES, NEW RESEARCH CONFIRMS. That is from Glasgow University's University News. Again, the point of the post was show how this is playing out in the media. One day this, next day that.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. A past day search shows that there are articles which seem to assert one or the other -- at least in the headlines. How to cut through the BS? Dunno. Maybe like so . . .
ReplyDeleteHere is a Guardian survey Will Covid-19 mutate into a more dangerous virus?, which stays in the question. It refers to the pre-print from April 29 that the Metro News leaned on, and adds another from the same date. There is this qualifier: "While that is possible [that some mutations are more dangerous], other scientists believe it is too early to know whether any of the mutations are helping the virus thrive."
Reading about the Glasgow study here: Glasgow University experts say virus behind COVID-19 has not mutated into different types, a closer look at the headline makes clear that the virus may be mutating, sure, but their research has not shown that it is mutating into different "types".
The Glasgow study was published on April 30, only a day after the other two, and with a different title than the copy editor chose: No evidence for distinct types in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2. There's not enough time for Glasgow to be a refutation, as such, of the other two. Here is a quote from the pdf:
"It is, however, important to appreciate that finding a majority of samples with a particular mutation is not evidence that viruses with that mutation transmit more readily. To make this suggestion would, at the very minimum, require a comparison to be made to expectations under a null distribution assuming equal transmission rates. As this has not been performed by the authors, there is insufficient evidence to make this suggestion, and therefore it is incorrect (and, we would argue, irresponsible) to state that there is any difference in transmission rates."
Here we have an editorial difference of opinion from the researchers, on what should and should not be "reported". Glasgow seems to be saying, "I see what you're up to, and maybe after peer review it'll turn out that you've been onto something all along, but don't go telling any lay people, not the divisive media." But the covid-19 preprints are public now, as a service.