MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => COVID-19 => Topic started by: GooooMarquette on January 13, 2021, 09:49:57 AM
-
Researchers at tOSU have identified a new strain of the virus that appears more transmissible than the original virus. It quickly became the dominant strain found in Columbus. Ugh....
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/13/ohio-researchers-say-theyve-identified-two-new-covid-strains-likely-originating-in-the-us.html
-
I've heard the spike protein mutated and now looks like this.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/1st_Chevrolet_Cavalier_sedan.jpg/280px-1st_Chevrolet_Cavalier_sedan.jpg)
-
Just out of curiosity. It makes sense for a virus to mutate to be more transmissible but it doesn't quite make sense for it to mutate to be more deadly does it? I mean a virus needs a host to survive and thus shouldn't these strains be less deadly?
-
Just out of curiosity. It makes sense for a virus to mutate to be more transmissible but it doesn't quite make sense for it to mutate to be more deadly does it? I mean a virus needs a host to survive and thus shouldn't these strains be less deadly?
Mutations are totally random. They occur as 'accidents,' and then survive (or not) based on whether or not they are still adapted to the environment.
-
Mutations are totally random. They occur as 'accidents,' and then survive (or not) based on whether or not they are still adapted to the environment.
Of course I understand the concept that they're random. But wouldn't the natural selection of mutations be to keep the host alive? I mean if it mutates to be extremely deadly then the majority of those with that mutation will die with the host. Meanwhile if it mutates to be less deadly it will be passed more frequently and that mutation will thrive.
I don't claim to have an advanced understanding of biology just trying to apply basic logic
-
Of course I understand the concept that they're random. But wouldn't the natural selection of mutations be to keep the host alive? I mean if it mutates to be extremely deadly then the majority of those with that mutation will die with the host. Meanwhile if it mutates to be less deadly it will be passed more frequently and that mutation will thrive.
I don't claim to have an advanced understanding of biology just trying to apply basic logic
I am no biologist either, but I would think that any virus that is both easily transmitted and extremely deadly doesn't need the host to survive for very long. By the time the host dies, it will have likely passed successfully to several other new hosts.
-
Of course I understand the concept that they're random. But wouldn't the natural selection of mutations be to keep the host alive? I mean if it mutates to be extremely deadly then the majority of those with that mutation will die with the host. Meanwhile if it mutates to be less deadly it will be passed more frequently and that mutation will thrive.
I don't claim to have an advanced understanding of biology just trying to apply basic logic
Yes - if it mutates to be more deadly, it would stand to reason it would eventually run out of hosts. But that would be pretty far off since the virus seems also to be able to live in other species (bats, cats, perhaps others). And in the meantime, it could decimate us....
-
Of course I understand the concept that they're random. But wouldn't the natural selection of mutations be to keep the host alive? I mean if it mutates to be extremely deadly then the majority of those with that mutation will die with the host. Meanwhile if it mutates to be less deadly it will be passed more frequently and that mutation will thrive.
I don't claim to have an advanced understanding of biology just trying to apply basic logic
I think that's the exact struggle with Covid. It keeps the host alive for easily 3-4 weeks after being infected. And for about 3 of those weeks the host will either think it's just a bad cold, or not even know they have the virus.
-
I've heard the spike protein mutated and now looks like this.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/1st_Chevrolet_Cavalier_sedan.jpg/280px-1st_Chevrolet_Cavalier_sedan.jpg)
Well done, sir! Well done!
-
I am no biologist either, but I would think that any virus that is both easily transmitted and extremely deadly doesn't need the host to survive for very long. By the time the host dies, it will have likely passed successfully to several other new hosts.
Here's an interesting graph on this - https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/17/6993851/diseases-deadly-infectious-reproduction-information-beautiful (https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/17/6993851/diseases-deadly-infectious-reproduction-information-beautiful). I think one of the points is that if you are going to be deadly, you've also got to be super contagious or you'll peter out. MERS was a good example of that.