re: the ''new'' Covid Strain (Page 1/3)
TheDigitalAlchemist DEC 29, 07:28 PM
We keep hearing that it is up to 70% more transmissible... what does that actually mean? Have any of you seen anything that clarifies that or explains any additional precautions we need to take?

Someone in Colorado has it and has no history of travel... ugh
rinselberg DEC 29, 09:37 PM
I don't think this changes anything for any ordinary person. I have been following the reports in various online media venues and I have not seen anything to suggest that the new strain is any different in the specific ways that it can be transmitted from one person to another.
sourmash DEC 29, 09:55 PM
Did the person in CO get the 'vaccine'?

Either way, fedgov needs to spend trillions more for a new vaccine, right?
maryjane DEC 29, 10:19 PM
I've seen no media, government, or other indication or report that any different or new vaccine will be needed.
There are other vaccines in the pipeline being tested, but they basically work the same way the current ones do.

The Colorado case patient says he has not traveled, but admits he has been around others and not all of those wore masks and he was less than forthcoming about his own social distancing and personal protocols. That county in Colo is rather rural.
If what has been reported about him is accurate, then it's a pretty good indication this variant is already out in the public domain of the US and probably has been for some time. In this country, many rural counties do little in the way of contact tracing tho this one may be an exception.


Is it worse than any of the other covid19 variants? Hard to say but it does have some differences. "This mutation appears to produce a high viral load in the nose and the mouth, which are the main ways COVID-19 spreads. The more virus, the higher chance of infecting someone else.

Is the new variant more infectious?
Yes, according to a review of the current evidence by the UK’s New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG). Its 18 December report said that the rate of transmission of the variant, known as B.1.1.7 or VUI 202012/01 (variant under investigation, year 2020, month 12, variant 01), was 71% (95% confidence interval 67% to 75%), higher than for other variants, and that it may also have a higher viral load.1 While previous variants have emerged without clear evidence of having a selective advantage, the report noted, the “emergence and subsequent dominance” of this new variant in a period of relatively high prevalence indicated that it does have a “selective advantage over other variants.”

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-29-2020).]

2.5 DEC 30, 09:57 AM
Essentially it means more percieved justification for more strict lock downs. Sadly.
sourmash DEC 30, 10:07 AM
Remember during the several other pandemics over the past 10-12 years in other nations/continents? During Sars or one of them there were conspiracy theory discussions (which are just lay people think tanks wherein people bounce ideas around), well, it was presented more than once that there might be racially targeted bioweapons being practiced with by world powers. Probably a lot of that on Alex Jones' show.
maryjane DEC 30, 10:56 AM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:

Essentially it means more percieved justification for more strict lock downs. Sadly.


Depends how people react to the variant, whether they continue to ignore protocols (and how many of them do that, and how many get vaccinated in the next 14-60 days.

It's really in the hands of 'the people', in how they react and act out.
Choices have consequences.
2.5 DEC 30, 11:22 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

Depends how people react to the variant, whether they continue to ignore protocols (and how many of them do that, and how many get vaccinated in the next 14-60 days.

It's really in the hands of 'the people', in how they react and act out.
Choices have consequences.




70% more spreadable in my mind means masks and distancing have less effect.
I would expect mandates to close more things longer and more strict rules regardless.
cvxjet DEC 30, 12:20 PM
Wouldn't it be better to just let the virus run it's course? At a 5% mortality rate, that would mean we only lose 15 million Americans......That ain't much...is it?

I hear people talk about their "Freedoms"....What freedom......The freedom to kill your grandmother?

The idiocy of people not being willing to take responsibility and do what is needed till this virus is under control is mind-boggling......

Anti-masker Luke Letlow is dead rather than becoming a Congressman......How are you going to spin that? (I know- the evil >>DEEP STATE!!!!<< murdered him..."Right"...?)
maryjane DEC 30, 01:22 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
70% more spreadable in my mind means masks and distancing have less effect.
I would expect mandates to close more things longer and more strict rules regardless.



Again, that depends on how people act and react, not how the virus performs.
70% more infectious capability is only applicable IF it gets out of the person that is sick or infected.