Coronavirus and mother nature to the rescue .

A new mutation has been identified that may be up to 10 times more contagious but less deadly.

It could be a really good thing because even with mutation comes antibodies.

Studies say this is the predominant virus at the moment . It might reflect on the spike in cases and reduced death rate.

But in my opinion if this mutation is as is advertised it’s all downhill from here folks.

A common mutation of the novel coronavirus seen in the United States may be more infectious but less deadly, according to recent reports. The World Health Organization (WHO) and infectious disease experts told Fox News the mutation of coronavirus is known as D614G and is predominately in North America.

“The D614G strain was first identified in February; it is presently the predominant strain in North America and Europe and is now back in Asia," the WHO told Fox News in an email.

“It has been thought that there are at least six different strain types and this is the dominant one that has taken over," Dr. Ravina Kullar, an epidemiologist, told Fox News.

Let’s see how the Democrats spin this

The sooner we get infected the earlier all this is relegated to a very minor issue, just like most infections

Gotta keep pulling this dead horse down the road somehow. The WHO's opinion is obviously biased and agenda driven, I'm sure I'm not the only one happy that Trump denounced them.

Just wondering at what point does everyone see it for what it is. A fake news production now dragged out for as long as possible.

a reply to: Fallingdown

This isn't new because you only just found out about it!



It is already the predominant strain in the USA and was identified back in February.

Look at all the other countries that had a major problem with COVID-19, and have now gotten over it. Just about every other country except for the UK and the USA.

What is wrong with those countries who haven't brought it under control and that have then suggested that this is somehow political? Sounds like they are incapable of doing what even third world, un-technological, poor countries have done.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah I read the article where it said it’s was found in February. I generally read my links before I post them .

As for the prevalence of cases in the United States overall. I’m not gonna get into the fact that we test more .

It’s common sense if you test the more you’re going to find more cases don’t you think .

Oops

a reply to: Fallingdown

Nope, just nope.

This doesn’t follow the narrative.

Did their engineered virus fail?

If it mutates to a lesser fatal virus — then they failed in their PLANdemic.

But wait, they will just release another one....

a reply to: Fallingdown

It’s common sense if you test the more you’re going to find more cases don’t you think .

Yes. And the converse is true as well. Some localities have cut back on testing.

Have you considered the possible significance of the number of positive tests in relation to total test as a meaningful metric?

Nationwide there is a slight downslope. Your results may vary but anything over about 10-12% is probably not good. Relying on one metric is not a good approach but hospitalizations may be the most practical.
coronavirus.jhu.edu...

a reply to: Fallingdown

The other good thing about this strain is that antibodies are holding longer...at least from what I read last night about it. That is great news as we need to develop the immune response to keep this from being so contagious...and also allow us to get back to work.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah I read the article where it said it’s was found in February. I generally read my links before I post them .

As for the prevalence of cases in the United States overall. I’m not gonna get into the fact that we test more .

It’s common sense if you test the more you’re going to find more cases don’t you think .

The USA also has more dead from COVID-19 than any other country in the world. Is that because they test more?

a reply to: RickyD

The other good thing about this strain is that antibodies are holding longer

Longer than what?

a reply to: Phage

The less than 3 months observed earlier in the pandemic. And I think even then of those given the antibody tests during that testing period they studied only about 10% of the testees held the antibodies that long.

a reply to: Phage

Found the article I read about this last night luckily...
Article on decaying antibodies

Article showing promise as antibodies are lasting longer

a reply to: RickyD

Sounds interesting. Can you provide the source which you were reading last night?

a reply to: Phage

One step ahead of you...as I knew you'd wanna read them. The first is a little over a month older than the more promising second article.

a reply to: RickyD

Your second source is behind a paywall. Can you link the study which it discusses?

Pretty sure this is the new study...which unfortunately hasn't been peer reviewed yeta reply to: Phage

a reply to: RickyD

Your source:

we conclude that immunity is durable for at least several months after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Your first source:

Their research letter, published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine, said that antibody levels against the novel coronavirus decreased by about half every 73 days and, if that rate were sustained, would be depleted within about a year.

And it has been proven that those antibodies last?

It isn't like chickenpox unfortunately.