# What do we know about the new ‘worst ever’ Covid variant?



## Northerner

*What is the new variant and why is it a concern?*​Scientists have detected a new Covid-19 variant called B.1.1.529 and are working to understand its potential implications. About 100 confirmed cases have been identified in South Africa, Hong Kong and Botswana.

B.1.1.529 has a very unusual constellation of mutations, which are worrying because they could help it evade the body’s immune response and make it more transmissible, scientists have said. Any new variant that is able to evade vaccines or spread faster than the now-dominant Delta variant may pose a significant threat as the world emerges from the pandemic.

Dr Susan Hopkins, the chief medical adviser to the UK Health Security Agency, said the R value, or effective reproduction number, of the B.1.1.529 variant in the South African province of Gauteng, where it was first found, was now 2 – a level of transmission not recorded since the beginning of the pandemic, before restrictions began to be imposed. For an R of anything above 1, an epidemic will grow exponentially.









						What do we know about the new ‘worst ever’ Covid variant?
					

UK places South Africa on red travel list over B.1.1.529 variant picked up by scientists in country




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## nonethewiser

No end to it is there, will life ever get back to normal.


----------



## Inka

nonethewiser said:


> No end to it is there, will life ever get back to normal.



Exactly my thought. Just when you think we’re moving forward, back we go again. I’d think the only answer is to shut down international travel for months.


----------



## Inka

I think such an investigation would be hard to do @Amity Island


----------



## Lily123

If this new variant can evade vacines that’s worrying


----------



## Inka

Amity Island said:


> In good old western tradition, we are very quick to blame others, it's been that way for as long as I can remember. Someone walks into a lamppost....who put it there? Where there's blame there's a claim.
> 
> 2020 economies crashed, businesses closed, schools closed, people die....no mention of who's to blame. Where's the 24hr blame campaign? Vanished.....



Because getting evidence would be very hard, and sometimes governments need to balance other risks and other needs. There’s plenty of unofficial blame out there, but official blame is different.


----------



## Lily123

Lockdowns are a pain especially as my BG was unpredictable during lockdown.Hopefully this variant can be stopped before it affects too many people


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Lily123 said:


> If this new variant can evade vacines that’s worrying


The vaccines guy on this morning's Today program didn't think that was likely. (I've not seen anyone else think it's likely either.) His argument was that all the mutations in the spike protein were things seen in other variants (or very like them). Maybe the monoclonal antibody treatments won't work so well, but the antibodies created in response to vaccination ought to be fairly varied.

On the optimistic side, maybe it'll spread really easily but be much milder. Or (I suspect most likely) it'll spread a bit faster, and the vaccines won't be quite as effective, and it'll be about as bad as the delta variant when you catch it. (Or, also possible, it just looks like it spreads faster because there weren't many infections in SA at the time, and in reality it won't outcompete delta at all.)


----------



## Lily123

Bruce Stephens said:


> The vaccines guy on this morning's Today program didn't think that was likely. (I've not seen anyone else think it's likely either.) His argument was that all the mutations in the spike protein were things seen in other variants (or very like them). Maybe the monoclonal antibody treatments won't work so well, but the antibodies created in response to vaccination ought to be fairly varied.
> 
> On the optimistic side, maybe it'll spread really easily but be much milder. Or (I suspect most likely) it'll spread a bit faster, and the vaccines won't be quite as effective, and it'll be about as bad as the delta variant when you catch it. (Or, also possible, it just looks like it spreads faster because there weren't many infections in SA at the time, and in reality it won't outcompete delta at all.)


It’s good that it isn’t likely and on the optimistic side you’re right that it may not be a bad


----------



## Northerner

Bruce Stephens said:


> On the optimistic side, maybe it'll spread really easily but be much milder. Or (I suspect most likely) it'll spread a bit faster, and the vaccines won't be quite as effective, and it'll be about as bad as the delta variant when you catch it. (Or, also possible, it just looks like it spreads faster because there weren't many infections in SA at the time, and in reality it won't outcompete delta at all.)


One of the experts on BBC News spoke about a similar coronavirus that has been around for over 100 years that initially caused many deaths, but is now associated with the virus responsible for the common cold. He said that now, since these viruses have been circulating for so long, we start gaining some immunity from them from a very early age - as a consequence, by the time people reach old age they are less vulnerable to its effects. The elderly have, however, no built-up immunity to the current virus, hence its devastating effect. Hopefully, thanks to the vaccines and naturally-acquired immunity, the current virus will become less harmful more rapidly 









						Q&A: Why history suggests Covid-19 is here to stay
					

He says that the foothold of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the human population today means it is likely to follow a similar pattern and become a continuously circulating, or ‘endemic’ virus, joining four other human coronaviruses that infect people with common cold symptoms.




					ec.europa.eu


----------



## everydayupsanddowns

Amity Island said:


> but nobody challenging or looking to the high chance of it coming from lab experiments into making viruses worse.



I don’t think that’s likely myself - though there are people still working on it, and publishing papers.

There have been a variety of studies, research and WHO-Covened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2:China

You might find the references in this rapid response interesting









						The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?
					

The theory that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in a lab was considered a debunked conspiracy theory, but some experts are revisiting it amid calls for a new, more thorough investigation. Paul Thacker explains the dramatic U turn and the role of contemporary science journalism  For most of 2020...




					www.bmj.com
				




“We draw your attention to a crucial, peer-reviewed paper: ‘The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review’ (2). This paper explores evidence for both a zoonotic origin and a laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2. It concludes: ‘There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin’ (2).”

“The authors also emphasise that SARS-CoV-2 contains no genetic markers pertaining to any prior laboratory experimentation (5), nor does any evidence exist of the presence of SARS-CoV-2, or a SARS-CoV-2 precursor, in the WIV (2). There is, however, emerging evidence (currently in pre-print form) to show sequences very similar (only one or two amino acids in difference) to early strains of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in bat populations (6) This not only supports a zoonotic origin hypothesis, but also highlights the very real threat of future pandemics. After all, 70% of all emerging infectious diseases have zoonotic origins (7), including every prior coronavirus (2)”


----------



## Leadinglights

They are thinking the new variant is mutation of the original virus and as the vaccine was developed from that there is every chance it will be effective.


----------



## Felinia

My friend and I went out for lunch yesterday as we have decided "que sera sera".  In a few weeks time when more is known we might think differently, but in the meantime are getting on with life.  Our Christmas dinner is still on, and the family still coming for Christmas.  We are triple jabbed, and always wear our masks (we never stopped).


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Northerner said:


> One of the experts on BBC News spoke about a similar coronavirus that has been around for over 100 years that initially caused many deaths, but is now associated with the virus responsible for the common cold.


There's a hypothesis that the Russian flu in ~1880 was a coronavirus which did this, but I think no samples have been recovered (unlike with the 1918 flu) so it's not known.

But yes, there's a hypothesis that this coronavirus will eventually become the 5th common cold-producing coronavirus. Originally I doubted it because this one feels nastier even to children, but maybe if babies are born from women who have immunity then it really might end up somewhat similar. And yes, this one will still end up killing some older people, but as someone has suggested maybe some proportion of "pneumonia" deaths also involve coronavirus cold viruses; it's not like anyone checks.

We have the big advantage that we can speed this process up. We just need everyone to get vaccinated.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Northerner said:


> B.1.1.529 has a very unusual constellation of mutations, which are worrying because they could help it evade the body’s immune response and make it more transmissible, scientists have said. Any new variant that is able to evade vaccines or spread faster than the now-dominant Delta variant may pose a significant threat as the world emerges from the pandemic.


https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-836/ discusses the variant.

(Spoiler alert: we don't know a whole lot. If you're worried and you're not vaccinated, get vaccinated.)


----------



## Eddy Edson

Bruce Stephens said:


> (Spoiler alert: we don't know a whole lot. If you're worried and you're not vaccinated, get vaccinated.)


Yeah I think the experts are saying it's too soon to know anything much.

But Trevor Bedford has some interesting-looking speculation: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1466076761427304453


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> We do however know at least one thing, that the official story of it coming from a bat at a market in Wuhan is unlikely, because they didn't sell them nor do they live near Wuhan.


On the other hand there's a whole lot of viruses which infect humans which we think came from animals (some recently like SARS, Mers, HIV), and some with rather uncertain origins (even when we're pretty confident about the source animal we might not be sure about how they ended up in humans). And we've got not a single example of a new virus escaping from a lab. (A few have leaked, but they've been pretty much what was around originally.) And no actual virologists seem to think anyone has the ability to have engineered this one.

(Some of the scientists who signed the famous letter saying they wanted more research on the origins have since said what they wanted was more research on the probable zoonotic origins, and if they'd known the letter would be used to boost the lab-leak theory they'd never have signed it.)


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> I don't understand your reply @Bruce Stephens are you saying you agree? or don't agree? that the virus didn't come from the market.


I think I agree with the consensus: the virus almost certainly came from some kind of bat, perhaps through some other animals. Maybe from the market, but maybe not. And likely not from the lab. And I'm not sure I care that much whether it came from the market or not.

We know that viruses infecting other animals can (sometimes) spill over, so we should study them more so we understand them better. And we know that bats have lots and lots of viruses.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Some more information (in a preprint) suggesting that there's an increased risk (compared to other variants) of reinfection in people who've previously recovered from infection. (No information on vaccinated people in this.)









						Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection associated with emergence of the Omicron variant in South Africa
					

Objective To examine whether SARS-CoV-2 reinfection risk has changed through time in South Africa, in the context of the emergence of the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants  Design Retrospective analysis of routine epidemiological surveillance data  Setting Line list data on SARS-CoV-2 with...




					www.medrxiv.org


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> How many confirmed pcr cases of omicron were detected in August?
> Were they able to pcr test for the omicron variant back in August?


I presume if they found omicron from samples in August they'd have mentioned it. By "reinfection", I (and they) mean infection with this variant following recovery from other variants (especially delta), and they think that's more common than it was with infection with delta following recovery from beta or other variants in SA.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> How do they establish this "reinfection" with the current (omicron) variant, when the tests used for the study were taken before omicron?


What do you mean? They have some people who (months ago) had some variant of the virus, and now they can test that they're infected with the omicron variant. And they describe that as reinfection (just as was done when lots of people ended up infected with delta even after they'd been infected during the first wave).

Nobody's saying anything (yet) about how vulnerable people who recover from an infection with the omicron variant might be to be reinfected with that (or any other) variant.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> I understand. But there are surely so few cases of omicron world wide, how can they draw any conclusions at this stage?


They've been very open in stressing this is early data and uncertain. And it's uncertain what it means to different populations (ours is older, fatter, but more highly vaccinated, for example).

It does fit with the speculation based on the mutations, there's a whole lot more change on the spike than in previously successful variants and that would suggest our antibodies and T cells (specialised for other variants) would be less good. In comparison the delta variant is less different to alpha and the original, so immunity to the older variants work fairly well against delta.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> If the answer to this question is zero, then why are we going to continue testing and applying restrictions and lockdowns and keep the 24 hr a day seven day a week, endless fear campaign going?


Because the variant is thought to have arrived maybe a week or two ago in the UK (and it takes a while before people get sick from any variant, typically).

Hospitals are already struggling (with ambulances queueing for hours, etc.). Not particularly with Covid-19 patients, but that's the one thing that the government can plausibly influence this winter.

It seems plausible (but definitely not confirmed) that the new variant is much milder but spreads much faster, and the combination might well still be very bad news: if only half as many cases need hospital treatment than delta but twice as many people get infected then that's the same number who need hospital treatment.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> But that wasn't the health secretaries answer. He didn't seem to know what the answer was.


We can now see the numbers growing really fast. Doubling every 2 days or so (and Denmark has theirs growing at a similar rate of about 50% a day). That puts some limits on how long it's likely to have been here (maybe 4 weeks, but likely less).


Amity Island said:


> And, what is a covid case?


I was using the term loosely as an individual who's infected.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> The other thing he said was, there were 336 confirmed cases. If they weren't ill, what were their reasons for getting a pcr test? NHS recommends only those with symptoms get tested.


They may have been close contacts of someone who had symptoms and tested positive. They might have tested positive on a rapid test. They might have been recommended to get a test by the Zoe app. I'm sure there are other possibilities.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> But as I have said before, the tests won't tell you that (if someone is infected or infective that is).


They are going to tell you if someone either has or had the infection. And if it's been sequenced (which I presume the ones who've been confirmed have been) then we know it must have been reasonably recent.


----------



## mikeyB

Personally I don’t care about this new variant, mainly because it doesn’t appear to be killing anybody. Maybe the unvaccinated, in areas where it is rampant, but at nothing like the level of the first edition. So it’s more infectious- of course it is, because folk aren’t feeling bad enough to get out and spread it. Grand for the virus, but so what?


----------



## Bruce Stephens

mikeyB said:


> Personally I don’t care about this new variant, mainly because it doesn’t appear to be killing anybody. Maybe the unvaccinated, in areas where it is rampant, but at nothing like the level of the first edition. So it’s more infectious- of course it is, because folk aren’t feeling bad enough to get out and spread it. Grand for the virus, but so what?


Yes, I'm not personally worried. I suspect even just the two doses of vaccine provide good protection against serious illness, and I (and most other people I know) have had 3 doses which seems like it's really good protection. But it's still early days. I think we don't have strong evidence to believe this virus is in itself milder (and won't be for a couple of weeks) and even if it were, lots more people needing hospital treatment in winter is going to be very bad.


----------



## mikeyB

Don’t know why you are so fascinated with Dr John Campbell. He’s not a medical doctor. His PhD is in nursing education, so actually his “expertise” is rather outgunned by those doctors on the SAGE committee.


----------



## mikeyB

No, he is giving his interpretation of daily developments.


----------



## Eddy Edson

mikeyB said:


> No, he is giving his interpretation of daily developments.


He can be a bad info source: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1469073228786192390
Presenting that bogus un-reviewed poster as an AHA "study" gives him a zero rating on the credibilitometer.


----------



## mikeyB

I'd be surprised if Dr John Campbell didn't have a reasonable knowledge of nursing, that's the subject of his PhD, and why he is entitled to be addressed as Dr. He has no knowledge or past experience of epidemiology, or apparently, any skill in reading scientific papers.

Throughout this pandemic, the Sage committee have been offering sound advice to the PM, most of which he has ignored. They are still offering sound advice. The Sage committee do have experience, and access to all data around the world. I choose to listen to them, even if the PM doesn't. They don't speak in incomprehensible English. If that's not plain English for you, then at least bow to their experience and knowledge. None of them post videos on YouTube, of course, so you probably don't see their advice.


----------



## Drummer

Logically, (something which seems lacking these days) what is needed is a really infectious but feeble virus, so variants ought to be encouraged not worked against, unless people are shown to be really ill and in danger.
Back before vaccination the only way to protect against smallpox was to catch cowpox - which was why milk maids were in general pretty - they got cowpox, recovered and were immune to the disfiguring and often deadly smallpox.
There has been a 'very bad cold' going around for some weeks now, but I don't know anyone who's testing for Covid to see if it might be the 'Omega' variant - the one which confers immunity with mild symptoms. I am just hoping and praying that it turns up before too long and things begin to calm down.


----------



## grovesy

Have you tried looked on their website?


----------



## Bruce Stephens

grovesy said:


> Have you tried looked on their website?


Which are https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies and https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> In the UK we've had comments from the pm that vaccines don't work and it's not the vaccines, it's the lockdowns that reduce the cases.
> 
> I know who I'd rather listen to.


I still think he was (against character, I know) correct in the sense that it was the physical distancing/reducing contacts that was reducing cases. (If he said that the vaccines don't work then he was obviously wrong. They do. They just don't do a great job at reducing cases. They're good at reducing illness. And at the time he was saying that not that many people had been vaccinated anyway.)

As an example of a good source of information I'd suggest This Week in Virology, which for the last couple of years has covered one virus rather more than others. For example on omicron, https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-836/

(It's not a good place for up to the minute speculation on news, though. Most of the discussion on omicron in that episode is "we don't know", "we have no data yet", etc.).)


----------



## Eddy Edson

Bruce Stephens said:


> I still think he was (against character, I know) correct in the sense that it was the physical distancing/reducing contacts that was reducing cases. (If he said that the vaccines don't work then he was obviously wrong. They do. They just don't do a great job at reducing cases. They're good at reducing illness. And at the time he was saying that not that many people had been vaccinated anyway.)
> 
> As an example of a good source of information I'd suggest This Week in Virology, which for the last couple of years has covered one virus rather more than others. For example on omicron, https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-836/
> 
> (It's not a good place for up to the minute speculation on news, though. Most of the discussion on omicron in that episode is "we don't know", "we have no data yet", etc.).)


Eric Topol is my first stop for COVID stuff: https://twitter.com/EricTopol


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> If omicron turns out to be just a headache, but thousands of people test positive, some with a headache, is this reason to bring in more restrictions? Surely paracetamol would be a better intervention for a headache?


The "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I think you're completely right: if omicron does turn out to be as mild as it seems to be (based on (among other differences) a much younger population, in summer) then we're golden.

But if it's just a bit worse than that then letting it rip through the population will end up with lots of dead people and even more seriously sick. (I think some other people have tried to look at the problems that would be caused if a large proportion of a population got a cold at the same time, and decided that that wouldn't be good, though I don't remember what they thought the specific problems would be.)


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> Regarding the MHRA, where is the quantitative risk assessment data and report which demonstrates the yellow card adverse reports are not the results of adverse reactions?


Just the summaries that I linked to before. Which are pretty detailed, I thought?

Coronavirus vaccine - weekly summary of Yellow Card reporting


----------



## mikeyB

He is a bit late in the news that two doses of vaccine won't protect you much. Seems everyone else, apart from you, knows that 3 doses _is _effective, which is why the government is pushing hard for everyone to get a third vaccine. Might not stop you getting unwell, but not at the level where you would need hospitalisation.

It's about time you stopped watching this nurse to get your vaccine advice, and listen to the epidemiologists advising the government.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> It's about time you stopped watching this nurse lol. It's posted for those that want to watch it, not for those that don't


But while he's popular, he seems to be really popular amongst people who are interested in non-mainstream views. (Just look at some of the comments.) While he seems keen on vitamin D and Zinc, as far as I can tell the trial evidence just isn't there. They're harmless (I think, at the doses he suggests) but really aren't likely to make a whole lot of difference so complaining that the PM didn't mention them is a bit silly. He also seems to still be keen on Ivermectin (even though it's surely a dead cause now).

He could have reasonably complained that the PM didn't announce (for example) significant work in schools to improve ventilation to make those safer in the new year.

(On the positive side, unlike some he doesn't seem to be involved in selling these alternative treatments.)


----------



## nonethewiser

Amity Island said:


> MikeyB,
> 
> It's about time you stopped watching this nurse lol. It's posted for those that want to watch it, not for those that don't


 
Stick with mainstream science mate.


----------



## Drummer

I have been able to get a test - to be delivered tomorrow, to see if I have picked up Omicron - headache, blurry vision, upset stomach, feeling washed out, aching back, sore throat, dry cough, runny nose, for a few days now. 
I had a lot planned for this week - but I thought it only considerate to be careful.
I'll let you know the results of the test.


----------

