04-21-2020, 05:34 AM
Yeah - that's from the UK Cambridge publication here:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/...2004999117
You see anything there that says these strains are functionally different in a way that would affect their infectivity or leathality?
The UK lab (along with many others) have grouped the hundreds of different covid genomes into various broad families that are "similar" enough, but none of these groups have been shown to have any functional differences, just differences in distributions (unless you have a link to a scientific source that says otherwise?)
Taiwan South China scientists earlier named strains A - E with a similar, but different take on the data. So which is better? How do these groupings matter?
ETA: Here's a link to the other grouping work I mentioned (see pretty pictures at bottom of pdf for a quick take on it)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nomic_data
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/...2004999117
You see anything there that says these strains are functionally different in a way that would affect their infectivity or leathality?
The UK lab (along with many others) have grouped the hundreds of different covid genomes into various broad families that are "similar" enough, but none of these groups have been shown to have any functional differences, just differences in distributions (unless you have a link to a scientific source that says otherwise?)
ETA: Here's a link to the other grouping work I mentioned (see pretty pictures at bottom of pdf for a quick take on it)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nomic_data