04-21-2020, 06:17 AM
Ironyak,
the 4/14 paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...1.full.pdf
seems to indicate that the new strains are in fact becoming more deadly. And seems to be based on the the much of the work the previous papers had published. buyer beware its not peer reviewed, but empirical data just on death counts in regions of infections seems to support the hypothesis that the B strain is indeed more deadly than what was the first strain (A). (Not to discount the other 30+ or so strains in the wild)
There is also direct correlation (as with any disease) that its viral loading or infection rate (stated 250x on mutant strains) creates an environment that overwhelms the body before the natural immune response can kick in. Strain A was already bad for creating a cytokine storm, 250x infection load rate seems to be apocalyptic in comparison.
Would you agree or not on that hypothesis?
the 4/14 paper https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...1.full.pdf
seems to indicate that the new strains are in fact becoming more deadly. And seems to be based on the the much of the work the previous papers had published. buyer beware its not peer reviewed, but empirical data just on death counts in regions of infections seems to support the hypothesis that the B strain is indeed more deadly than what was the first strain (A). (Not to discount the other 30+ or so strains in the wild)
There is also direct correlation (as with any disease) that its viral loading or infection rate (stated 250x on mutant strains) creates an environment that overwhelms the body before the natural immune response can kick in. Strain A was already bad for creating a cytokine storm, 250x infection load rate seems to be apocalyptic in comparison.
Would you agree or not on that hypothesis?