Friday, March 6, 2020

There are Two Types of Coronavirus: Type S and Type L: L is more fatal than S

Type S is milder and mostly not fatal. Type L is much more virulent and often fatal it turns out.

The problem is that LA Times wants me to subscribe. However, if you haven't been there lately you might get a few free articles to look at online.

Here is a partial quote if you can't get the article:
Begin quote:
"Chinese scientists who compared the genetic sequences of 103 viral samples from patients infected with Covid-19 said that their evidence suggests that the virulent version of the coronavirus-which they tagged the "L-type" version was the dominant strain in the earliest phase of the outbreak that began in Wuhan late last year. That strain, they said, appeared to recede as the epidemic progressed.

But among samples collected later, as Covid-19 spread across China and into other nations a variant  of the virus they dubbed the "S-type" was more common, the scientists reported. They suggested that the genetic makeup of the "S" version more closely resembles coronaviruses circulating in bats and pangolins, the animals that are thought to have incubated the virus before it jumped to humans. And they surmised this is a less virulent version."

Later quote same article:
"Of the 103 viral genomes they scoured, 70% were of the L-type variant. But by early January, the scientists wrote, it appears that "human intervention" -- possibly the "rapid and comprehensive prevention and control measures adopted by China-- had begun to limit the spread of this strain." end 2nd partial quote.

end partial quote of the LA Times article called:

"Here's why Chinese scientists say there's a second, more dangerous coronavirus strain"

Here's why Chinese scientists say there's a second, more dangerous coronavirus strain

Friday, March 6, 2020 - 01:10 in Health & Medicine
A controversial study asserts that two strains of coronavirus are circulating in China. One is older and less aggressive, the other newer and more dangerous.

Read the whole article on LA Times - Science

More from LA Times - Science

No comments: