This LATimes article is INFURIATING. So much misinformation based on just that preprint. They took quotes from the author's PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE. An anonymous quote that this is 'classic Darwinian evolution.' Commentary on viral load and pathogenesis from a toxicologist. 
As I've said before, my academic career is based in virus evolution. I've written papers and reviews on adaptations that can underlie emergent viruses. Could always use the citations!
But at this point everyone is misinterpreting likely stochastic drift effects, sampling bias.
But at this point everyone is misinterpreting likely stochastic drift effects, sampling bias.
If you want to define strains you probably need:
1) experimental evidence of mutation function. Ideally animal transmission model.
2) evidence of prevalance shift from competition. Assuming null distribution is equal, varied transmission in controlled host-limiting environment.
1) experimental evidence of mutation function. Ideally animal transmission model.
2) evidence of prevalance shift from competition. Assuming null distribution is equal, varied transmission in controlled host-limiting environment.
I should learn to write like Dr Hanage.
One other point.
The work comes from an excellent research group in HIV work. This bioinformatic pipeline will have real utility. They got a bit over their skis on title, conclusions. They deserve a strong and good-faith peer review.
This article and 'discourse' is not that.
The work comes from an excellent research group in HIV work. This bioinformatic pipeline will have real utility. They got a bit over their skis on title, conclusions. They deserve a strong and good-faith peer review.
This article and 'discourse' is not that.
