More infectious coronavirus mutation may be 'a good thing', says disease expert
By: John Geddie and Chen Lin (YahooNews)
Another day, another scientific contradiction.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - An increasingly common mutation of the novel coronavirus found in Europe, North America and parts of Asia may be more infectious but appears less deadly, according to a prominent infectious diseases doctor.
Paul Tambyah, senior consultant at the National University of Singapore and president-elect of the International Society of Infectious Diseases, said evidence suggests the proliferation of the D614G mutation in some parts of the world has coincided with a drop in death rates, suggesting it is less lethal.
"Maybe that's a good thing to have a virus that is more infectious but less deadly," Tambyah told Reuters.
Tambyah said most viruses tend to become less virulent as they mutate.
"It is in the virus' interest to infect more people but not to kill them because a virus depends on the host for food and for shelter," he said.
Scientists discovered the mutation as early as February and it has circulated in Europe and the Americas, the World Health Organization said. The WHO has also said there is no evidence the mutation has led to more severe disease.
On Sunday, Malaysia's director-general of health Noor Hisham Abdullah urged greater public vigilance after authorities detected what they believe was the D614G mutation of the coronavirus in two recent clusters.
Sebastian Maurer-Stroh of Singapore's agency for science, technology and research said the variant has also been found in the city-state but that containment measures have prevented large-scale spread.
Malaysia's Noor Hisham said the D614G strain detected there was 10 times more infectious and that vaccines currently in development may not be effective against this mutation.
But Tambyah and Maurer-Stroh said such mutations would not likely change the virus enough to make potential vaccines less effective.
"(The) variants are almost identical and did not change areas that our immune system typically recognise, so there shouldn't be any difference for vaccines being developed," said Maurer-Stroh.
(Reporting by John Geddie and Chen Lin; Editing by Lincoln Feast)
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
The experts say maybe this, maybe that, maybe not. Well, maybe it's time to stop relying on experts and use a little common sense.
Nerm I am truly amazed that you cast new findings as a negative on science itself. How can you possibly not know that science is a process based on incomplete information and that as new information arises, prior hypotheses are cast aside in favor of revised hypotheses which factor in the new information.
You deem this contradiction.
Well if science did not 'contradict' itself (evolve with new information) it would simply be a religion. Right?
Maybe this, maybe that, maybe not. How can incomplete information provide proper guidance? A guess is still a guess.
That is a rational illusion which ignores religions evolving into sects that contradict each other. Religious wars have been fought over those contradictions. Science is no different.
You are not aware that science is inherently a process based on incomplete information? That science never has all the facts and thus science never claims certainty but rather states: best explanation we have thus far but will revise pending new evidence.
Not the point I was making. Religion's inherently presuppose a truth and hold to that 'truth'. Science does the opposite. Science follows the evidence to where it leads; the exact opposite of religion.
Which doesn't address the question: how can incomplete information provide proper guidance? A guess is still a guess.
Best explanation is still just a best guess since certainty is unattainable.
But science also presupposes a truth and holds to that truth until that truth can be refuted. Often the refutation is uncertain.
Science follows evidence to make a best guess (since certainty is unattainable) and adopts that best guess as truth. Science compares new evidence to previous truths that have been adopted. Science questions contradictory evidence rather than questioning adopted truths.
Nerm, good friggin' grief, you cannot possibly be so unaware of science. Science is always dealing with incomplete information. Do you think quantum physics is based on complete knowledge of the quantum world or that cosmology has all the answers?
This is just too ridiculous to take seriously.
A reasoned hypothesis (and especially a theory of science) is not a best guess simply because not everything is known (science is not omniscient). You are playing words games again and I have no patience for it.
Cite an example of this. The word truth is pretty important here so do not equivocate.
Science is not unique in that respect.
Does correlation indicate causation? Is a hypothetical cause supported by statistical correlation really science?
Observations are known facts; observations are certain. A reasoned hypothesis is supposed to be supported by causal evidence based upon the characteristics and behavior observed in nature. Producing observations from controlled conditions introduces uncertainty that the controlled conditions replicate nature. Statistical analysis introduces uncertainty that valid evidence is being ignored. Inductive extrapolation of theory introduces uncertainty that the analogy is applicable.
The methodology of science introduces its own uncertainty. Science may not be any more omnipotent than any other attempt to explain observations and facts. But science is also quite susceptible to being misled by its own biases and uncertainties just as any other attempt to explain observations and facts.
Science has made declarative statements and forecasts based upon experience with past pandemics. Science has relied upon inductive analogy with past pandemics to issue guidance (and requirements) for addressing the current pandemic. Experience obtained from past pandemics has been adopted as truth derived from evidence. That truth has influenced reliance on testing, selection of medical treatments, planning for production of necessary supplies, and pubic guidance for governmental action.
But as the pandemic has progressed, evidence has been obtained that contradicts adopted truths derived from the evidence of past pandemics. The retention and continued reliance on those truths have introduced uncertainty concerning important aspects of responding to the pandemic.
How does the virus spread? What does testing accomplish? Are medical protocols really safe? Is the virus a cause of death or is the virus a complication for pre-existing conditions? Will people develop immunity?
As science has progressed during the pandemic, uncertainty has increased. And that uncertainty has contradicted the adopted truth derived from evidence of past pandemics. The truths adopted early in the pandemic have become less trustworthy because science has introduced uncertainty.
Never claimed it was. The point was that it does not and cannot have all the information. Your comments should consider that fact.
Non sequitur. You are way off on a tangent. I made no claim even close to this. This is just Gish-galloping nonsense Nerm. Your attempt to deem science as guesswork is ridiculous.
Cite where science has declared truth. I am not wasting my time if you are going to just blab.
As I figured, you are playing loose with the word 'truth'. Nowhere does science state truth because science does not declare certainty. It is fundamental to science that theories be falsifiable and that necessarily means that they cannot be a declaration of truth. That which is falsifiable (which means it is considered to be possible to falsify) cannot be deemed as truth.