Read on Twitter
So this article's been going around! It can be a bit scary.
First and probably the most important thing: This doesn't change what we do. We still vaccinate or shield the immunocompromised first, we still strive for herd immunity via mass vaccination. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/02/05/964447070/where-did-the-coronavirus-variants-come-from
First and probably the most important thing: This doesn't change what we do. We still vaccinate or shield the immunocompromised first, we still strive for herd immunity via mass vaccination. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/02/05/964447070/where-did-the-coronavirus-variants-come-from
TLDR of the article: A man with a compromised immune system that couldn't ever clear the virus showed a bunch of mutations in the virus inside him in the course of a few months.
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
As noted by the article, most mutations won't increase survival of the virus. So we don't know if this rate of mutation is faster than normal (which the article implies) or if we're just able to catch a better sample of the total mutational population because it's all in one guy
So? Mostly it means we really need to protect immunocompromised people. Vaccinate the people we can, and protect the rest. This is why we strive for herd immunity levels of vaccinations.
Many immunocompromised people (like this individual) wouldn't be able to mount enough antibody response, even with a vaccine. The goal of herd immunity is to protect people like this.
And if protecting vulnerable people isn't a worthy enough goal on its own, now we have reason to protect them for selfish reasons. Because if we don't, those people may become test labs for the virus to mutate vaccine resistant strains.
End of practical part
End of practical part
From a basic science perspective, lets posit that the mutation rate *is* higher in this individual. We can hypothesize a couple potential reasons why.
1) He had it for 5 months and never cleared it. So he's simply having more divisions of virus, and every division has a chance of mutation. Similar to seeing "higher" mutation rates in populations with more infections.
More virus simply results in more mutations over any span of time, even if each individual has a constant rate. Additionally his partial responses and treatments may have kept the virus in a more rapidly dividing phase by never depleting it, but neither letting it overpopulate.
2) Lamarck wasn't totally wrong. In general, we all know that striving for a thing (say, high apples) doesn't make your offspring better equipped to get the thing (say, grow longer arms). BUT, when it comes to bacteria and viruses and fungi... things get wonky.
Test the mutation rate of batch of E.Coli. That will give you a probability that any particular mutation will pop up. Now, put that same batch of E. coli on antibiotic. Antibiotic resistance will arise much faster than the previously calculated mutation rate would suggest.
It is possible that this individual really did have faster mutation because of the pressures on his SARS-CoV-2 population from successive treatments.
So to circle back:
We need to protect everyone, whether it's because we're decent humans or because we're self-interested.
Those "vulnerable" people we "just let get the bug so they die and stop being a drain on society" are breeding grounds for new strains before they die.
We need to protect everyone, whether it's because we're decent humans or because we're self-interested.
Those "vulnerable" people we "just let get the bug so they die and stop being a drain on society" are breeding grounds for new strains before they die.
Personally, I'd prefer to do it because we're decent humans and letting your vulnerable population die is horrible.
But if you're not a good enough person to want to save grandma because she's grandma, do it because the virus might use her to kill you.
But if you're not a good enough person to want to save grandma because she's grandma, do it because the virus might use her to kill you.
