Posted on 12/25/2020 12:49:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Just when we thought there was cause for hope in the Covid-19 vaccines, we’ve hit a wall. Christmas is off and we might all be locked down for months longer. In reality, the vaccines, even once proved to be safe and efficacious, had little chance of impacting the virus this winter. Production, distribution and application to all of those in need in such a short timeframe was never feasible.
However, an increasing drift towards some sort of normality by the spring appeared possible. The UK government’s decision to introduce tier four lockdown restrictions across London and much of the south east, and the travel bans imposed on UK citizens by other countries have created chaos. What prompted such action?
The answer is a new variant of Sars-CoV-2, thought to have enhanced infectivity. Retrospective analysis traced the first identitified case of the variant, named “VUI – 202012/01” (the first Variant Under Investigation in December 2020), to Kent on 20 September. By mid November, around a quarter of all cases in London were caused by the new variant and by mid December nearly two thirds were. Modelling of the relative rate of appearance of the new variant has indicated it might be 70 per cent more transmissible than earlier versions of the virus, although this has yet to be demonstrated directly. One alarming suggestion, from researchers at Imperial College London, hints that children might be more vulnerable to infection with the new variant. If this proves correct, the ramifications are serious both for increased transmission and for potential school closures.
Older versions of the virus were clearly being displaced by this new one, implying enhanced transmission. But evidence that it might also cause worse disease, and a higher mortality rate, has not yet emerged. In fact, viruses often evolve to become less virulent but more contagious because that increases their overall ability to transmit. However, a virus that replicates more quickly will reach higher numbers faster and some individuals, who would normally mount an adequate immune response, might now struggle if their immune response lags behind.
Data on disease severity should be available already. The national consortium of laboratories sequencing viral isolates picked up in the testing programme can pinpoint its distribution. If the clinical picture also points to increasing hospitalisations and deaths where the new variant is most prevalent, we can infer the worst. Minimising spread seems sensible. But the virus has been circulating for at least three months already, so there is little chance of halting its transmission now.
Will the vaccine deal with the crisis? Perhaps, and the current vaccines will work against this new variant. But we need to be cautious. The mutation in the new strain that is attracting most attention is within the spike (S) protein. It is the S protein that enables the virus to bind to receptors (primarily the ACE2 receptor) on our cells before then entering and hijacking the cell’s machinery to replicate and create many new copies of itself. The Sars-CoV-2 coronavirus has been mutating constantly since its first appearance. Such mutation is normal. It is the basis of the evolution of all life forms. Changes occur at random as errors creep in while the genome is copied. Many mutations are detrimental and thus lost quickly. Others are neutral, neither enhancing nor diminishing viral fitness. On rare occasions, however, a change can improve viral fitness. When these happen, as with the novel variant, the virus transmits more readily.
The viral genome encodes the proteins that create the virus itself and mutations lead to changes in that structure. The proteins themselves are made up of strings of little chemicals called amino acids. One of the amino acid changes in the new virus sits in precisely the part of the protein that binds to ACE2, allowing it to bind tighter. Other mutations are appearing in the S protein too. It is the original S protein, the one found in the ancestral virus from Wuhan, that comprises all of the vaccines currently licensed, and most others in development.
There is no great cause for fear as antibodies and T-cell responses, the two branches of protective immunity, hit multiple sites along the S protein, so the new variant is still recognised by immune effectors in vaccinated people. However, as the vaccine is used more widely, the virus will be under increasing pressure as it enters hosts equipped with destructive antibodies. Only viruses with mutations that enable them to evade such antibodies will survive. As these survivors propagate, new mutations will appear, each new S protein resembling the original version less.
These vaccine-evasive variants are indeed possible, although the likelihood of their emergence is not yet clear. That the S protein must retain the ability to bind ACE2 constrains the number of mutations possible. Moreover, the remarkable scientific advances achieved during the pandemic mean that, in principle, we can alter the S proteins added to the vaccine almost as quickly as they emerge.
The flu virus has a far greater capacity to mutate than Covid-19 and it is for this reason that we produce new versions of the flu vaccine each year. It is relatively straightforward to amend the sequence of the vaccines we have now created, although some degree of safety and efficacy testing will be needed on each occasion.
In short, the new variant, with its increased contagiousness, is cause for alarm. If it turns out to be more virulent too, so much the worse. If it is the first step towards a series of viruses drifting away from the structure of those used in generating vaccines, this is worse still.
We must keep testing to detect the viruses and sequencing to trace the mutation problem. But we also need to redouble our efforts in other areas too. Drugs that target parts of the virus beyond the S protein, for example, are needed more urgently than ever. A clear and robust test-and-trace system, supported by enforced isolation, is as critical as ever, too.
The UK has been at the forefront of scientific efforts to combat coronavirus. But ultimately, whether countries have dealt successfully with Covid-19 has been dependent on political intervention – where Britain has fared rather less well.
more royalties for CDC and FauXi for their patents.
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
EVERYDAY is CHRISTMAS for CDC and
FauXi from their now endless royalties.
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
ka ching
They just keep looking for excuses to keep the masks on and the schools closed.
They needed something to explain the death of vaccine-takers, this is it.
It’s not because it’s not mentioned at all.
All they are hyperventilating about is how contagious it is.
RE: All they are hyperventilating about is how contagious it is.
But it is contagious. Much more so than the original where we have developed vaccines for.
The question is -— how severe are the symptoms for those who are infected compared to the original?
So the question is, how dangerous is this? Do we need to do more shutdowns for this new strain of virus?
And overall, is the new normal that we never get back to normal life, because there will always be some new strain of virus discovered?
These are serious questions, for which some political leaders take a zero tolerance approach, meaning we have to all stay home and shut everything down because there is a virus going around. The good news about Covid 19 is that the vast majority who get it will not die from it. But that fact is lost in some of the hype and news reporting about the whole situation.
*but I’m not gonna hike my shirt over my head to show the zombie face on the inside...just wanted to clear that up
:D
Am starting to smell a possible ruse ....
Not so fast.
The “70% more infectious” thing came from the same bozos at Imperial College London who predicted 2 million deaths due to COVID back in the spring. Neil Ferguson has been more consistently wrong, in an alarmist way, than even Anthony Fauci. That takes true talent.
And I have this question: what does it mean to say that something is 70% more than something else? Do they mean 170%? If so, why couch it in mathematically ambiguous terminology?
I can’t remember the source (I think I saw it on Glen Reynold’s “Instapundit”), that linked to a piece in which they got Ferguson to admit that he had pulled the number out of thin air.
Don’t trust content from ICL.
Other reasons at play ? How deep is the rabbit hole ?
I smell fear but is it fear of a virus ?
First of all;
When a Virus Mutates or “Evolves” it has, in most likelihood lost some of its function. It may still have a “Viral Function” but it moves around in a different way.
Trying to stop a Virus that has mutated with traditional medicines would be like a policeman trying to put handcuffs on a criminal that has no arms.
The Virus will run its course. Virtually everyone will get infected.
And, that’s it.
Am smelling a pattern.
Nothing here about whether more dangerous or not. Only says more cases. Just like the common cold varies all the time.
So, we can assume it has not affected hospitalizations AT ALL.
THIS IS FEAR PORN
Well certainly, we must make sure it gets back to China.
Me too but I may not know what am talking/thinking but there just went a rabbit .....
There are signs that the vaccines we have may be effective.
The symptoms may be worse, however, because of the 8 mutations to the spikes. It seems to me, not a medical person, that if it can get into the cells more easily, more cells will be affected faster, which will result in a more severe illness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.