Coronavirus: Mutant Strain More Deadly or Contagious?

There have been various articles out in the news media reporting on coronavirus findings from scientists and doctors. One set of articles deals with how there might be a more deadly mutation of the virus. South China Morning Post (20 April) reported:

Professor Li Lanjuan and her colleagues from Zhejiang University found within a small pool of patients many mutations not previously reported. These mutations included changes so rare that scientists had never considered they might occur.

They also confirmed for the first time with laboratory evidence that certain mutations could create strains deadlier than others.

. . . The deadliest mutations in the Zhejiang patients had also been found in most patients across Europe, while the milder strains were the predominant varieties found in parts of the United States, such as Washington state, according to their paper.


. . . To verify the theory, Li and colleagues infected cells with strains carrying different mutations. The most aggressive strains could generate 270 times as much viral load as the weakest type. These strains also killed the cells the fastest. 



Something got me a little curious here. Per the article, the deadlier form of the virus ended up in Zhejiang province. That is, not in Hubei province where Wuhan is. I found this info via Statistics: Hubei recorded 4,512 deaths while Zhejiang reported 1 death. That's right, 1 death. Is the mutation found in Zhejiang really deadlier? Or is China's reporting on deaths wrong? I suppose lockdowns could have also limited the spread.

The Los Angeles Times (5 May) followed up a couple weeks later:

Scientists have identified a new strain of the coronavirus that has become dominant worldwide and appears to be more contagious than the versions that spread in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new study led by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The new strain appeared in February in Europe, migrated quickly to the East Coast of the United States and has been the dominant strain across the world since mid-March, the scientists wrote.

In addition to spreading faster, it may make people vulnerable to a second infection after a first bout with the disease, the report warned.

Washington Post (28 May) reported:

Research by a team at Cambridge University showed how the virus mutated as it left East Asia and traveled to Europe, noting the possibility that the initial strain may have been “immunologically or environmentally adapted to a large section of the East Asian population” and needed to mutate to overcome resistance outside that region.

. . . A team of scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory also argued that a more highly contagious strain of the virus has taken hold in Europe and spread in the United States — but other experts have said the significance of emergent strains remains unclear.

One thing I found interesting here is that the Washington Post focuses on a Cambridge study. Then makes mention of the Los Alamos National Laboratory study. Yet, it makes no mention of the Zhejiang University study that came out first. A little bit too slanted to Western research? Or just a general mistrust of anything coming out from China regarding this virus?

Anyways, the interesting difference between the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Zheijang University is that the Los Alamos study claims that a mutated form of the virus is more contagious. The Zheijang study is claims it is more deadly. Of course, this could be me not properly understanding medical terms and they're really coming up with the same results.