I ran across this article on Facebook, and truthfully the article seems pretty much all hope and no real data, but it made me think. If you were trying to channel a viral outbreak into a less virulent strain, does it seem reasonable that social distancing and isolation of the symptomatic cases would potentially be a major factor? With those measures, asymptomatic cases would be more likely to be spread, and more severe cases would be isolated, and those infected would stay at home. If the asymptomatic infections still produced a protective immune response, it would be a good thing.
Therefore, if that is correct, the lock down and social distancing may well have benefits beyond just the immediate spread of the disease, but may actually help transform it to a less virulent form.
That is pretty interesting, though it seems like a perspective that is too focused on the decrease of Europe and North America and not paying attention to the massive outbreak in South America, especially in places like Brazil.
Maybe I am mistaken though.
My concern was that it really did not have any science behind the observations. It would be more convincing if they could show a change in the RNA sequence of the virus seen as compared to the initial virus. Otherwise, it may just be wishful thinking.
There was one early mutation in the spike protein, which has come to dominate most of the pandemic outside of eastern Asia and nearby areas and which may cause increased transmissibility. Other than that, there are no really widespread mutations, nor is there any good evidence (the last I’ve heard) of recurrent mutations increasing in frequency, i.e. the same change occurs at the same spot in the genome in multiple viral lineages. The latter would be strong evidence for positive selection.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.