How the novel coronavirus has evolved • Hacker News Board

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#31

Post by divbzero » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:18 AM UTC

akkawwakka wrote: post #22

melling wrote: post #9

“If the virus changes substantially, particularly the spike proteins, then it might escape a vaccine. We want to slow transmission globally to slow the clock,” Is this why some are saying we might need a booster shot in a few years?

To correct the quoted assertion... There is little selection pressure on the virus for the spike proteins to evolve and change. SARS-CoV-2 infects human cells just fine using its current spike protein. [1] [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

Thanks for that Nature news feature, it summarized the research on SARS-CoV-2 mutations quite well.

We’ll have to watch for signs of selection pressure as more and more of us get vaccinated to recognize the spike protein. Hopefully SARS-CoV2 mutates too slowly to escape the vaccines, or can only escape with sharply reduced infectivity and virulence.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#32

Post by WanderPanda » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:21 AM UTC

akkawwakka wrote: post #22

melling wrote: post #9

“If the virus changes substantially, particularly the spike proteins, then it might escape a vaccine. We want to slow transmission globally to slow the clock,” Is this why some are saying we might need a booster shot in a few years?

To correct the quoted assertion... There is little selection pressure on the virus for the spike proteins to evolve and change. SARS-CoV-2 infects human cells just fine using its current spike protein. [1] [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

Yay, then lets see how the spike protein evolves after mass vaccination. In my understanding the vaccination targets exactly that protein so there should be plenty of selective pressure in case mass vaccination takes place

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#33

Post by kolinko » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:23 AM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #13

kolinko wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You imploed that mutation is the same as a „change in any way biologically”. Coronaviruses mutate slowly, and the majority of mutations chamge nothing in the way the virus mutates. So far, out of all the strains, only one has been shown to modify it’s behaviour.

"Strain" is defined as a mutation that causes a change in behavior.

In the article it is’t - only one of the strains mentioned has a change in behaviour.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#34

Post by kolinko » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:23 AM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #23

kolinko wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is by design. You should upvote/dovnvote good/bad ways of expression, and if you disagree with something then argue why you do.

It's OK to downvote on disagreement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

TIL, thanks.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#35

Post by someotherperson » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:24 AM UTC

Since this will continue to be misunderstood, it's important to emphasise that the article explicitly mentions that there is

1. No evidence to support the idea of strains that have any impact on infection

2. No evidence to support the idea that the strains will resist the vaccines or weaken vaccine efficacy.

This is not a "strain" in the sense of the flu, COVID-19 hasn't fundamentally changed in any meaningful way that lets us do anything other than track the pandemic's spread.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#36

Post by chimprich » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:25 AM UTC

bostik wrote: post #25

Towards the end of the article is a particularly good nugget of information. > Since then, there have been documented reports of individuals being reinfected with different versions of the virus. Yes, reinfections have been extremely rare so far. But if the immunity really is strain-specific, the warnings about Covid becoming endemic in the global population should now carry a lot more weight. The virus will mutate.…

> > Since then, there have been documented reports of individuals being reinfected with different versions of the virus.

> [...] But if the immunity really is strain-specific

Reinfections have been recorded from different strains because it's much easier to demonstrate that someone has been reinfected with a new strain. If someone has been reinfected with the same strain then it is hard to distinguish that from an infection that wasn't fully cleared originally. It doesn't necessarily mean that immunity is strain-specific.

(I don't know why you were downvoted; your comment seems reasonable to me!)

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#37

Post by brian_cloutier » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:30 AM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #12

So it's finally okay to say there's multiple strains with different infectiousness and (possibly) severity? Back in February-ish (I forget exactly when), we had confirmed community spread in Washington (West-coast state in the US), with the belief that it had been spreading for weeks and no one noticed, because of how few cases there were, and no bump in hospitalizations. This was likely the Wuhan strain, which likew…

Nature has a decent article on this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

Apparently we have little idea whether D614G is more infectious but that is hard to believe given that it has so thoroughly outcompeted other strains.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#38

Post by sillysaurusx » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:36 AM UTC

What does everyone think of the idea that there is an 80/20 rule in play for Coronavirus? Specifically, 80% of the infections come from 20% of the infected. I’ve heard some hearsay about it, but nothing conclusive; I was hoping someone knew either way.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#39

Post by My7thAccount » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:37 AM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #21

nmfisher wrote: post #2

And I was downvoted on HN for merely asking the question whether coronavirus could mutate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24035686

In case there's further whining about this comment being downvoted: I didn't downvote due to hivemind mentality or agreement/disagreement about the original, I downvoted because whining about downvotes makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Additionally, it takes a single, random HN user with 500 karma to put a comment into "downvoted" state. It takes three or four to be "heavily downv…

Talking about karma makes for boring reading too.

Re: How the novel coronavirus has evolved

#40

Post by My7thAccount » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 10:38 AM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #21

nmfisher wrote: post #2

And I was downvoted on HN for merely asking the question whether coronavirus could mutate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24035686

In case there's further whining about this comment being downvoted: I didn't downvote due to hivemind mentality or agreement/disagreement about the original, I downvoted because whining about downvotes makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Additionally, it takes a single, random HN user with 500 karma to put a comment into "downvoted" state. It takes three or four to be "heavily downv…

It takes like a week of posting articles to get to 500 karma. I've done it 12 times now which means if I want to, I can make anyone's comment instantly go dead. But they are imaginary points so don't care too much