vox--2020-12-23--The year we gave up on privacy

The year we gave up on privacy

As a digital privacy reporter , I try to avoid sites and services that invade my privacy , collect my data , and track my actions .
Then the pandemic came , and I threw most of that out the window .
You probably did , too .
I gave away tons of personal data to get the things I needed .
Food came from grocery and restaurant delivery services .
Everything else — clothes , kitchen tools , a vanity ring light for Zoom calls , office furniture — came from online shopping platforms .
I took an Uber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my primary means of communication with most of my coworkers , friends , and family .
I attended virtual birthdays and funerals .
Therapy was conducted over FaceTime .
I downloaded my state ’ s digital contact tracing tool as soon as it was offered .
I put a camera inside my apartment to keep an eye on things when I fled the city for several weeks .
Millions of Americans have had a similar pandemic experience .
School went remote , work was done from home , happy hours went virtual .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people shifted their entire lives online , accelerating a trend that would have otherwise taken years and will endure after the pandemic ends — all while exposing more and more personal information to the barely regulated internet ecosystem .
At the same time , attempts to enact federal legislation to protect digital privacy were derailed , first by the pandemic and then by increasing politicization over how the internet should be regulated .
All things told , 2020 was a bust for digital privacy .
But 2021 doesn ’ t have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning of 2020 When 2020 began , there was reason to be optimistic that we ’ d get federal privacy legislation in the coming years , possibly even in this one .
Though concerns have been brewing for some time , the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal marked a turning point in how many Americans ( and lawmakers ) viewed Big Tech , data , and tech ’ s impact on society .
The scandal involved a researcher at Cambridge Analytica , a political consulting firm that did work for the Trump campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ data .
After this happened , Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared before Congress , where he was grilled about user privacy .
The Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) ended up fining Facebook $ 5 billion for privacy violations .
By the end of 2019 , the vast majority of Americans felt they had no control over their data and were concerned about how it was being used , according to a Pew study .
There was a bipartisan consensus that something had to be done .
Accordingly , Republicans and Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calling for jail time for tech CEOs , a new federal data privacy agency , and a legally enforceable internet version of the Do Not Call list .
Senate Democrats released a framework for privacy laws , and Maria Cantwell ( D-WA ) , ranking member of the Commerce Committee , came out with her own privacy bill in accordance with them .
Privacy advocates approved .
Elsewhere , California rang in 2020 with the implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act ( CCPA ) , the strongest data privacy law in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where things were going , rolled out more privacy options to quell user fears and show that they were capable of regulating themselves .
And seemingly everyone was disturbed by revelations that a company called Clearview AI scraped the internet for billions of public images to populate its facial recognition database , then tried to sell the service to law enforcement and private companies .
Then the pandemic hit , and Congress had more pressing concerns .
At the same time , people needed the services that collect and use their data to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
( Essentially , anything you do that uses the internet is likely collecting your data in some way , and many of those services are monetizing it one way or another . )
Some may not have been willing to trade their privacy for those services before .
Now they had to .
The pandemic put more people online than ever , and their data followed When stores closed and people were afraid to leave their homes , consumers turned to online shopping for groceries and other necessities .
Restaurant delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Streaming services had a great year ( except Quibi ) , taking the place of movie theaters and most other forms of entertainment .
School and work also moved online .
Accordingly , employers turned to worker tracking software and schools turned to online proctoring services to monitor their employees and students from afar .
Remote schools put children ’ s privacy at the mercy of edtech companies , some of which have spotty track records .
Google ’ s school services — from Chromebooks to its Classroom software — added millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Zoom , only to find that the company hadn ’ t put a lot of thought into its privacy controls or cybersecurity .
Zoombombing was easy and frequent , subjecting users to images of pornography and racism in the middle of their math classes and town meetings .
Zoom claimed to offer end-to-end encryption ; it didn ’ t .
It also sent user data to Facebook and LinkedIn .
The FTC wasn ’ t pleased , but the punishment for Zoom was basically a wrist slap .
Telehealth expanded significantly during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see their health care providers without having to risk visiting a physical office .
The Department of Health and Human Services loosened HIPAA restrictions , temporarily allowing health care providers to use non-HIPAA-compliant services such as FaceTime , Facebook Messenger , and Skype to communicate with patients .
“ There ’ s been some different incursions into people ’ s lives , ” Jennifer King , the director of privacy at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School , told Recode .
“ I think that the real highlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t , ‘ I ’ m choosing to use Google for my searches over somebody else.
’ It ’ s , ‘ My school district has told me that we have to use Google Classroom.
’ There ’ s no negotiating with them.
” Not only did people integrate more data collection and information exposure into their daily lives , but they were also told that this tracking could have public health benefits .
Location data companies promoted their services as useful tools to track the virus ’ s spread or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they tracked millions of people who were likely unaware that they were being tracked at all , let alone how .
But it ’ s hard to say that any one of them did much good , given the pandemic ’ s mostly unchecked spread across the country .
The good news is that some of the more extreme and invasive privacy violations once feared at the beginning of the pandemic haven ’ t come to pass — yet .
“ We don ’ t have widespread contact tracing apps that monitor our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , ” Adam Schwartz , senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) , told Recode .
“ We don ’ t have immunity passports .
And we don ’ t have GPS shackles or compelled phone malware for patients in home quarantine.
” But that ’ s not to say that some of those things won ’ t come to pass in the months ahead .
As the vaccine rolls out , we may yet see those immunity passports , and companies are lining up to offer health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and concert venues .
Ironically , the one way that tracking has been proven to help slow or stop the spread of disease — contact tracing — hasn ’ t been effective during the pandemic because the majority of Americans won ’ t do it .
( Neither will the Trump White House . )
Giving up health information for the sake of helping other people is apparently the line some people won ’ t cross .
Manual contact tracing efforts have floundered due to a lack of resources to implement them and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact tracing tools were initially seen as a possible savior , but adoption rates have been low .
Apple and Google ’ s unprecedented joint effort to create an exposure notification tool with seemingly decent privacy protections ( to the point that public health officials criticized them for not providing enough data ) hasn ’ t come to much .
States were slow to roll their apps out , and then people didn ’ t want to use them .
Over the summer , the George Floyd protests put a spotlight on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveillance technology like facial recognition .
Some companies stopped working with law enforcement at the height of anti-police sentiment , though how long those moratoriums last remains to be seen .
Some cities and states put forward measures and laws prohibiting their use .
Proposed federal legislation , on the other hand , hasn ’ t gone anywhere .
There ’ s also been some increased scrutiny on how law enforcement obtains data .
Multiple reports have detailed how police simply purchase location data from data brokers instead of bothering with a warrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop this , and the subsequent discovery that some of this data came from a Muslim prayer app caused a great deal of outcry .
That data was obtained by X-Mode , one of the many data location companies that promoted itself as a tool to fight the coronavirus earlier this year .
Apple and Google have since banned from their stores apps that use X-Mode ’ s tracking code .
But they haven ’ t done a thing to all the other apps that use trackers planted by other companies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which could further delay legislation While some lawmakers did continue to sound the alarm about privacy throughout the year , especially with regard to issues raised by the pandemic , the focus on how to regulate the internet seems to have shifted away from privacy laws and toward curbing the power wielded by Big Tech companies .
Generally , the left and the right have differing ideas of how to do this .
Democrats are looking at using antitrust laws to break the companies up , while Republicans hope to take away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the internet as a whole ) to prosper .
Many Republicans have recently taken up the cause of repealing Section 230 to fight what they see as a greater or more immediate Big Tech evil : censorship of conservative voices by too-powerful and liberal companies .
Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity from what their users post on them , and it ’ s necessary for Facebook , Twitter , YouTube , and countless other , smaller , sites to exist .
Both sides have their issues with Section 230 , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have made it their rallying cry .
“ Big Tech wants to run our country , ” Sen. Hawley , who has become one of the leading Republican voices against Big Tech , told Recode .
“ And unless Congress does something about it , they will .
Section 230 gives these companies unchecked monopoly power .
It ’ s time to end those monopolies , end Section 230 , and protect Americans.
” Making this now-politicized issue the center of any upcoming Big Tech legislation could derail the progress of privacy bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to be optimistic that those antitrust investigations will indirectly make things better for consumer privacy .
By the end of 2020 , attorneys general from almost every state in the country sued Facebook and Google over antitrust violations , with privacy playing a surprisingly large role in some of these lawsuits .
Facebook is accused of using its market dominance to erode user privacy on its own platforms as well as prevent the rise of platforms that might have offered better privacy options .
Google ’ s ad business — and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is another target of the suits .
( Facebook and Google have denied that they engage in anti-competitive practices and call the suits meritless . )
“ All of [ the suits ] , if successful , should improve privacy by allowing consumers to ‘ vote with their feet ’ and leave established companies with bad privacy policies and go instead to new companies with better privacy policies , ” said Schwartz , the EFF attorney .
“ However , this is an indirect path from here to privacy .
The antitrust lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privacy legislation.
” California , meanwhile , has done what the federal government could not , passing another privacy law called the California Privacy Rights Act ( CPRA ) .
Among other things , this law adds and funds a dedicated agency to investigate privacy violations .
It also signals that Americans favor such laws — CPRA was a ballot measure approved by voters , not a law created by legislators .
Washington state , meanwhile , is now on its third attempt to enact its own state privacy law .
Several other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the pandemic hit ; they may well take them back up when it passes .
“ I think as California ’ s new law goes into effect and other states start to pass their own privacy laws , demand for federal legislation by consumers and even businesses who want some certainty is only going to build , ” Sen. Wyden , who co-wrote Section 230 and is one of the Senate ’ s biggest privacy hawks , told Recode .
“ I try not to make predictions after the past couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an eternal optimist.
” There are also signs of renewed federal interest in privacy regulation .
The FTC recently ordered nine platforms — Amazon , TikTok , Discord , Facebook , Reddit , Snapchat , Twitter , WhatsApp , and YouTube — to disclose their data collection and ad targeting practices .
Democratic and Republican commissioners voted in favor of the order .
And the Senate Commerce Committee recently held a hearing to “ revisit ” the need for federal privacy legislation .
Finally , there are indications that the incoming Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on privacy issues than the outgoing administration did .
Biden is on record as not being a fan of Big Tech ( especially Facebook ) or the lack of regulations on the industry .
He ’ s also indicated that he ’ s open to repealing Section 230 .
Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris both have a pro-privacy track record .
That said , they ’ ve also been criticized for being too friendly with Big Tech .
But there may be limits on what the Biden administration can accomplish without bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By the end of last year , senior Democrats endorsed a set of really strong privacy principles , and several members introduced promising legislation , ” he said .
“ Then , of course , we ran into the trifecta of Republican obstruction , a global pandemic , and the 2020 election .
Overall , though , I ’ m encouraged that we cleared the way for something to get done in the next few years .
I ’ m definitely looking forward to working with the Biden-Harris administration after the past four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic has made people more comfortable with giving away their privacy and exposed their information to more services , this may also make them more aware of how those companies take and use their information .
We ’ ll see if familiarity breeds contempt or complacency .
I have to admit that , for me , the latter has been more true .
Zoom was the only way I could see my grandma when the flights were canceled ; I bought the security camera for my apartment after a break-in scare .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d been for the last seven months would make this pandemic go away , I ’ d happily comply .
The upside of these services has never been greater , but users can only hope the companies that provide them respect their privacy , despite overwhelming evidence that they don ’ t .
Hopefully , we ’ ll get a government that will acknowledge and protect our privacy rights — before they ’ re gone forever .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

As a digital privacy reporter, I try to avoid sites and services that invade my privacy, collect my data, and track my actions. Then the pandemic came, and I threw most of that out the window. You probably did, too.
I gave away tons of personal data to get the things I needed. Food came from grocery and restaurant delivery services. Everything else — clothes, kitchen tools, a vanity ring light for Zoom calls, office furniture — came from online shopping platforms. I took an Uber instead of public transportation. Zoom became my primary means of communication with most of my coworkers, friends, and family. I attended virtual birthdays and funerals. Therapy was conducted over FaceTime. I downloaded my state’s digital contact tracing tool as soon as it was offered. I put a camera inside my apartment to keep an eye on things when I fled the city for several weeks.
Millions of Americans have had a similar pandemic experience. School went remote, work was done from home, happy hours went virtual. In just a few short months, people shifted their entire lives online, accelerating a trend that would have otherwise taken years and will endure after the pandemic ends — all while exposing more and more personal information to the barely regulated internet ecosystem. At the same time, attempts to enact federal legislation to protect digital privacy were derailed, first by the pandemic and then by increasing politicization over how the internet should be regulated.
All things told, 2020 was a bust for digital privacy. But 2021 doesn’t have to be.
Privacy laws had momentum at the beginning of 2020
When 2020 began, there was reason to be optimistic that we’d get federal privacy legislation in the coming years, possibly even in this one. Though concerns have been brewing for some time, the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal marked a turning point in how many Americans (and lawmakers) viewed Big Tech, data, and tech’s impact on society.
The scandal involved a researcher at Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm that did work for the Trump campaign, who improperly accessed millions of Facebook users’ data. After this happened, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared before Congress, where he was grilled about user privacy. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ended up fining Facebook $5 billion for privacy violations. By the end of 2019, the vast majority of Americans felt they had no control over their data and were concerned about how it was being used, according to a Pew study. There was a bipartisan consensus that something had to be done.
Accordingly, Republicans and Democrats rolled out a slew of privacy bills, calling for jail time for tech CEOs, a new federal data privacy agency, and a legally enforceable internet version of the Do Not Call list. Senate Democrats released a framework for privacy laws, and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Commerce Committee, came out with her own privacy bill in accordance with them. Privacy advocates approved.
Elsewhere, California rang in 2020 with the implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the strongest data privacy law in the country. Data companies, realizing where things were going, rolled out more privacy options to quell user fears and show that they were capable of regulating themselves. And seemingly everyone was disturbed by revelations that a company called Clearview AI scraped the internet for billions of public images to populate its facial recognition database, then tried to sell the service to law enforcement and private companies.
Then the pandemic hit, and Congress had more pressing concerns. At the same time, people needed the services that collect and use their data to carry out most aspects of their daily lives. (Essentially, anything you do that uses the internet is likely collecting your data in some way, and many of those services are monetizing it one way or another.) Some may not have been willing to trade their privacy for those services before. Now they had to.
The pandemic put more people online than ever, and their data followed
When stores closed and people were afraid to leave their homes, consumers turned to online shopping for groceries and other necessities. Restaurant delivery apps boomed as many restaurants went bust. Streaming services had a great year (except Quibi), taking the place of movie theaters and most other forms of entertainment.
School and work also moved online. Accordingly, employers turned to worker tracking software and schools turned to online proctoring services to monitor their employees and students from afar. Remote schools put children’s privacy at the mercy of edtech companies, some of which have spotty track records. Google’s school services — from Chromebooks to its Classroom software — added millions of young users.
People have turned to Zoom, only to find that the company hadn’t put a lot of thought into its privacy controls or cybersecurity. Zoombombing was easy and frequent, subjecting users to images of pornography and racism in the middle of their math classes and town meetings. Zoom claimed to offer end-to-end encryption; it didn’t. It also sent user data to Facebook and LinkedIn. The FTC wasn’t pleased, but the punishment for Zoom was basically a wrist slap.
Telehealth expanded significantly during the pandemic, offering patients a way to see their health care providers without having to risk visiting a physical office. The Department of Health and Human Services loosened HIPAA restrictions, temporarily allowing health care providers to use non-HIPAA-compliant services such as FaceTime, Facebook Messenger, and Skype to communicate with patients.
“There’s been some different incursions into people’s lives,” Jennifer King, the director of privacy at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, told Recode. “I think that the real highlight is the lack of options. That isn’t, ‘I’m choosing to use Google for my searches over somebody else.’ It’s, ‘My school district has told me that we have to use Google Classroom.’ There’s no negotiating with them.”
Not only did people integrate more data collection and information exposure into their daily lives, but they were also told that this tracking could have public health benefits. Location data companies promoted their services as useful tools to track the virus’s spread or measure the effectiveness of social distancing as they tracked millions of people who were likely unaware that they were being tracked at all, let alone how. But it’s hard to say that any one of them did much good, given the pandemic’s mostly unchecked spread across the country.
The good news is that some of the more extreme and invasive privacy violations once feared at the beginning of the pandemic haven’t come to pass — yet.
“We don’t have widespread contact tracing apps that monitor our location or report data directly to the government,” Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told Recode. “We don’t have immunity passports. And we don’t have GPS shackles or compelled phone malware for patients in home quarantine.”
But that’s not to say that some of those things won’t come to pass in the months ahead. As the vaccine rolls out, we may yet see those immunity passports, and companies are lining up to offer health verification programs to airports, offices, and concert venues.
America’s selective resistance to digital tracking and surveillance
Ironically, the one way that tracking has been proven to help slow or stop the spread of disease — contact tracing — hasn’t been effective during the pandemic because the majority of Americans won’t do it. (Neither will the Trump White House.) Giving up health information for the sake of helping other people is apparently the line some people won’t cross.
Manual contact tracing efforts have floundered due to a lack of resources to implement them and Americans’ reluctance to participate. Digital contact tracing tools were initially seen as a possible savior, but adoption rates have been low. Apple and Google’s unprecedented joint effort to create an exposure notification tool with seemingly decent privacy protections (to the point that public health officials criticized them for not providing enough data) hasn’t come to much. States were slow to roll their apps out, and then people didn’t want to use them.
Over the summer, the George Floyd protests put a spotlight on how police abuse their power, including using surveillance technology like facial recognition. Some companies stopped working with law enforcement at the height of anti-police sentiment, though how long those moratoriums last remains to be seen. Some cities and states put forward measures and laws prohibiting their use. Proposed federal legislation, on the other hand, hasn’t gone anywhere.
There’s also been some increased scrutiny on how law enforcement obtains data. Multiple reports have detailed how police simply purchase location data from data brokers instead of bothering with a warrant. Some lawmakers have pushed for regulations to stop this, and the subsequent discovery that some of this data came from a Muslim prayer app caused a great deal of outcry. That data was obtained by X-Mode, one of the many data location companies that promoted itself as a tool to fight the coronavirus earlier this year. Apple and Google have since banned from their stores apps that use X-Mode’s tracking code. But they haven’t done a thing to all the other apps that use trackers planted by other companies.
Regulating Big Tech has become increasingly politicized, which could further delay legislation
While some lawmakers did continue to sound the alarm about privacy throughout the year, especially with regard to issues raised by the pandemic, the focus on how to regulate the internet seems to have shifted away from privacy laws and toward curbing the power wielded by Big Tech companies. Generally, the left and the right have differing ideas of how to do this. Democrats are looking at using antitrust laws to break the companies up, while Republicans hope to take away immunity protections that allowed those companies (and the internet as a whole) to prosper.
Many Republicans have recently taken up the cause of repealing Section 230 to fight what they see as a greater or more immediate Big Tech evil: censorship of conservative voices by too-powerful and liberal companies. Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity from what their users post on them, and it’s necessary for Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and countless other, smaller, sites to exist. Both sides have their issues with Section 230, but Republicans — encouraged by President Trump — have made it their rallying cry.
“Big Tech wants to run our country,” Sen. Hawley, who has become one of the leading Republican voices against Big Tech, told Recode. “And unless Congress does something about it, they will. Section 230 gives these companies unchecked monopoly power. It’s time to end those monopolies, end Section 230, and protect Americans.”
Making this now-politicized issue the center of any upcoming Big Tech legislation could derail the progress of privacy bills and antitrust investigations. But there is reason to be optimistic that those antitrust investigations will indirectly make things better for consumer privacy. By the end of 2020, attorneys general from almost every state in the country sued Facebook and Google over antitrust violations, with privacy playing a surprisingly large role in some of these lawsuits. Facebook is accused of using its market dominance to erode user privacy on its own platforms as well as prevent the rise of platforms that might have offered better privacy options. Google’s ad business — and its reliance on data collected about users — is another target of the suits. (Facebook and Google have denied that they engage in anti-competitive practices and call the suits meritless.)
“All of [the suits], if successful, should improve privacy by allowing consumers to ‘vote with their feet’ and leave established companies with bad privacy policies and go instead to new companies with better privacy policies,” said Schwartz, the EFF attorney. “However, this is an indirect path from here to privacy. The antitrust lawsuits are no substitute for comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation.”
The future of federal privacy laws
California, meanwhile, has done what the federal government could not, passing another privacy law called the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). Among other things, this law adds and funds a dedicated agency to investigate privacy violations. It also signals that Americans favor such laws — CPRA was a ballot measure approved by voters, not a law created by legislators. Washington state, meanwhile, is now on its third attempt to enact its own state privacy law. Several other states were considering their own privacy laws when the pandemic hit; they may well take them back up when it passes.
“I think as California’s new law goes into effect and other states start to pass their own privacy laws, demand for federal legislation by consumers and even businesses who want some certainty is only going to build,” Sen. Wyden, who co-wrote Section 230 and is one of the Senate’s biggest privacy hawks, told Recode. “I try not to make predictions after the past couple of years! But I’m sort of an eternal optimist.”
There are also signs of renewed federal interest in privacy regulation. The FTC recently ordered nine platforms — Amazon, TikTok, Discord, Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter, WhatsApp, and YouTube — to disclose their data collection and ad targeting practices. Democratic and Republican commissioners voted in favor of the order. And the Senate Commerce Committee recently held a hearing to “revisit” the need for federal privacy legislation.
Finally, there are indications that the incoming Biden administration will have a more productive focus on privacy issues than the outgoing administration did. Biden is on record as not being a fan of Big Tech (especially Facebook) or the lack of regulations on the industry. He’s also indicated that he’s open to repealing Section 230. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris both have a pro-privacy track record. That said, they’ve also been criticized for being too friendly with Big Tech. But there may be limits on what the Biden administration can accomplish without bipartisan cooperation.
Wyden is hopeful. “By the end of last year, senior Democrats endorsed a set of really strong privacy principles, and several members introduced promising legislation,” he said. “Then, of course, we ran into the trifecta of Republican obstruction, a global pandemic, and the 2020 election. Overall, though, I’m encouraged that we cleared the way for something to get done in the next few years. I’m definitely looking forward to working with the Biden-Harris administration after the past four years.”
In the meantime, while the pandemic has made people more comfortable with giving away their privacy and exposed their information to more services, this may also make them more aware of how those companies take and use their information. We’ll see if familiarity breeds contempt or complacency.
I have to admit that, for me, the latter has been more true. Zoom was the only way I could see my grandma when the flights were canceled; I bought the security camera for my apartment after a break-in scare. If a shady data broker knowing everywhere I’d been for the last seven months would make this pandemic go away, I’d happily comply.
The upside of these services has never been greater, but users can only hope the companies that provide them respect their privacy, despite overwhelming evidence that they don’t. Hopefully, we’ll get a government that will acknowledge and protect our privacy rights — before they’re gone forever.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-12-22--The viral tweet about Trump refusing to give Biden his @POTUS followers is wrong, even if it is on-b

The viral tweet about Trump refusing to give Biden his @POTUS followers is wrong, even if it is on-brand

When Joe Biden becomes president on January 20 , his administration will gain control of the @ POTUS and @ WhiteHouse Twitter accounts .
But the combined 60 million followers of those accounts may not be going with them .
The transfer has become an issue between Twitter and the Biden transition team , according to the Wall Street Journal .
The Biden team wants to keep the followers of those accounts , as was the case for the Obama-Trump transition .
Four years ago , and dealing with this issue for the first time , the Obama administration made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition as smooth and seamless as possible .
This time , Twitter has other ideas .
“ The accounts will not automatically retain their existing followers , ” Twitter spokesperson Nick Pacilio said in a statement .
“ Instead , Twitter will notify followers of these accounts to provide context that the content will be archived and allow them the choice to follow the Biden administration ’ s new accounts.
” Twitter did not provide a reason for the change , but the Wall Street Journal article pointed out that the 2017 Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a glitch caused people who had deliberately unfollowed the @ POTUS account to automatically follow it again , which many people did not appreciate .
What might have been a minor issue blew up on — where else ?
— Twitter on Tuesday afternoon after a freelance journalist named Hugo Lowell tweeted that the Trump administration refused to give its followers to Biden .
But that ’ s not true , according to Twitter , which said it was an “ inaccurate characterization.
” Biden digital director Rob Flaherty agreed .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request for comment .
Lowell declined to comment , but he did issue a correction .
Lowell ’ s incorrect tweet has gotten thousands of retweets and “ Likes , ” and understandably so : It is consistent with Trump ’ s brand to do something like this .
Trump is obsessed with how many followers he has and with having more of them than anyone else , so it would make sense if he were loath to give away the tens of millions of followers acquired during his presidency to the person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also been a fitting end to the Twitter presidency .
Twitter helped Trump get elected , as he used the platform to raise his profile , speak out against Obama , and spread racist birther conspiracies .
The platform also enabled Trump to run a successful presidential campaign , run the country , and , finally , run an unsuccessful presidential campaign — all without changing his behavior or tone one bit .
It ’ s therefore ironic that Trump would be the victim of viral misinformation-by-tweet after being a misinformation superspreader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then watched those lies spread across social media before making their way onto traditional media formats to be seen and heard by millions if not billions .
President Trump has faced few consequences for his tweets .
Only in the last year , when it became apparent that there was a real chance he would lose the election , did social media platforms try to curb the misinformation he expertly used them to spread .
It will be interesting to see how they treat him once his account isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Twitter has already said it would consider taking down Trump tweets that violate its rules ( currently , it only tags them with a fact-check ) .
When he leaves office in January , Trump will still have control over his personal account , @ realDonaldTrump , which he used far more than the official accounts and which has millions more followers than @ POTUS and @ WhiteHouse combined .
So after all that , maybe it ’ s for the best that the official White House accounts get a fresh start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground up .
Hopefully , the people who followed those accounts purely out of interest in and respect for the offices — as opposed to whoever happens to be in them — will see and accept the offer to follow them again .
Update , December 22 , 7 pm ET : Added Hugo Lowell ’ s correction tweet and decline to comment .

When Joe Biden becomes president on January 20, his administration will gain control of the @POTUS and @WhiteHouse Twitter accounts. But the combined 60 million followers of those accounts may not be going with them.
The transfer has become an issue between Twitter and the Biden transition team, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Biden team wants to keep the followers of those accounts, as was the case for the Obama-Trump transition. Four years ago, and dealing with this issue for the first time, the Obama administration made it a point to make the digital transition as smooth and seamless as possible. This time, Twitter has other ideas.
“The accounts will not automatically retain their existing followers,” Twitter spokesperson Nick Pacilio said in a statement. “Instead, Twitter will notify followers of these accounts to provide context that the content will be archived and allow them the choice to follow the Biden administration’s new accounts.”
Twitter did not provide a reason for the change, but the Wall Street Journal article pointed out that the 2017 Twitter transition had technical issues. Among them, a glitch caused people who had deliberately unfollowed the @POTUS account to automatically follow it again, which many people did not appreciate.
What might have been a minor issue blew up on — where else? — Twitter on Tuesday afternoon after a freelance journalist named Hugo Lowell tweeted that the Trump administration refused to give its followers to Biden.
Biden transition says Trump admin has refused to transfer the @POTUS and @WhiteHouse Twitter accounts with followers and that Biden must start from zero — reversing goodwill gesture from Obama admin in 2016. — Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) December 22, 2020
But that’s not true, according to Twitter, which said it was an “inaccurate characterization.” Biden digital director Rob Flaherty agreed.
Just to be clear: this is Twitter's decision, not Trump's.https://t.co/7jqhLmbX9e — Rob Flaherty (@Rob_Flaherty) December 22, 2020
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Lowell declined to comment, but he did issue a correction.
Correction: Digital Director for Joe Biden @Rob_Flaherty says @POTUS and @WhiteHouse accounts being reset to zero followers is Twitter’s decision, not the Trump admin. Unclear still whether Trump admin has asked for followers to roll over as Obama did in 2016. https://t.co/T659ZZgC89 — Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) December 22, 2020
Lowell’s incorrect tweet has gotten thousands of retweets and “Likes,” and understandably so: It is consistent with Trump’s brand to do something like this. Trump is obsessed with how many followers he has and with having more of them than anyone else, so it would make sense if he were loath to give away the tens of millions of followers acquired during his presidency to the person who beat him.
Such pettiness would have also been a fitting end to the Twitter presidency. Twitter helped Trump get elected, as he used the platform to raise his profile, speak out against Obama, and spread racist birther conspiracies. The platform also enabled Trump to run a successful presidential campaign, run the country, and, finally, run an unsuccessful presidential campaign — all without changing his behavior or tone one bit.
It’s therefore ironic that Trump would be the victim of viral misinformation-by-tweet after being a misinformation superspreader himself. He has lied, frequently, and then watched those lies spread across social media before making their way onto traditional media formats to be seen and heard by millions if not billions.
President Trump has faced few consequences for his tweets. Only in the last year, when it became apparent that there was a real chance he would lose the election, did social media platforms try to curb the misinformation he expertly used them to spread. It will be interesting to see how they treat him once his account isn’t subject to special rules for public officials; Twitter has already said it would consider taking down Trump tweets that violate its rules (currently, it only tags them with a fact-check). When he leaves office in January, Trump will still have control over his personal account, @realDonaldTrump, which he used far more than the official accounts and which has millions more followers than @POTUS and @WhiteHouse combined.
So after all that, maybe it’s for the best that the official White House accounts get a fresh start and a chance to rebuild from the ground up. Hopefully, the people who followed those accounts purely out of interest in and respect for the offices — as opposed to whoever happens to be in them — will see and accept the offer to follow them again.
Update, December 22, 7 pm ET: Added Hugo Lowell’s correction tweet and decline to comment.


vox--2020-12-22--The political chief at Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropy is stepping down

The political chief of Mark Zuckerberg ’ s philanthropy is leaving his post , Recode has learned , which is stirring some speculation that he could take on a new role with his former boss , Kamala Harris .
Mike Troncoso , once a top aide to Harris , is stepping down from his position as the head of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ’ s Justice and Opportunity Initiatives ( JOI ) , CZI confirmed to Recode .
The leader of JOI is one of the top positions at the organization that Zuckerberg and his wife , Priscilla Chan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of JOI , Troncoso oversaw one of Silicon Valley ’ s biggest political advocacy operations that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars pushing for immigration reform , changes to the criminal justice system , and more affordable housing .
The departure is notable for two reasons : Zuckerberg ’ s political team at his philanthropy has had to navigate tricky tensions that are rooted in political challenges in Zuckerberg ’ s day job at Facebook , challenges that will only intensify under Joe Biden .
And secondly , the timing of Troncoso @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he could be in line for a senior position staffing with Harris , which would serve as another possible link between the Biden administration and Zuckerberg , who is facing antitrust scrutiny and a skeptical public .
Troncoso served as chief counsel to Harris when she was California ’ s attorney general .
He oversaw a major investigation into the state ’ s banking actions during the financial crisis , one of her landmark accomplishments , and he later co-chaired her transition team when she was elected to the Senate .
Harris name-checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Troncoso had recently told people he works with at CZI that he did not currently have plans to join the administration , according to sources , but that no decision had been made .
CZI said that Troncoso planned to return to public service and is relocating with his family to the East Coast .
Harris has only unveiled the names of a few of her top aides .
The Biden-Harris transition team didn ’ t return a request for comment .
Troncoso succeeded David Plouffe , Barack Obama ’ s longtime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CZI ’ s JOI programming .
While Troncoso was a lower-profile figure , he oversaw a number of high-profile political projects , such as the $ 10 million that CZI spent on its ultimately unsuccessful attempt to add billions to California ’ s budget , CZI ’ s most expensive electoral play yet .
Troncoso originally oversaw CZI ’ s work on criminal justice reform , and CZI eventually was spending about $ 40 million a year on that effort , becoming one of the area ’ s largest philanthropic funders .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time when CZI ’ s co-founder , Zuckerberg , and the source of its wealth , Facebook , grew to become a greater liability .
Some of that antagonism has ricocheted onto Zuckerberg ’ s philanthropy , even though CZI is entirely distinct from Facebook .
Some people who have worked at CZI have alleged that its political work is overly sensitive to what could impact Facebook , and a former JOI employee last month publicly filed a discrimination complaint against the organization , claiming in part that Troncoso ’ s team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its political programming .
CZI has said that it investigated these claims and they are “ unsubstantiated.
” Troncoso will be succeeded at least in the interim by Osi Imeokparia , who comes from a more technical background and oversaw the JOI team ’ s product development .
Like other political advocacy shops , CZI will probably have to rethink some of its programming under a new president and in a new political climate , especially its work on federal immigration reform .
CZI recently released an internal report card of sorts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosed that it had spent $ 436 million on its JOI work during that time .
As part of that review , CZI also said it would spend $ 500 million over the next five years on initiatives focused on racial equity , something that Zuckerberg critics say he has fumbled at Facebook .

The political chief of Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropy is leaving his post, Recode has learned, which is stirring some speculation that he could take on a new role with his former boss, Kamala Harris.
Mike Troncoso, once a top aide to Harris, is stepping down from his position as the head of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s Justice and Opportunity Initiatives (JOI), CZI confirmed to Recode. The leader of JOI is one of the top positions at the organization that Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, founded in 2015. As the head of JOI, Troncoso oversaw one of Silicon Valley’s biggest political advocacy operations that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars pushing for immigration reform, changes to the criminal justice system, and more affordable housing.
The departure is notable for two reasons: Zuckerberg’s political team at his philanthropy has had to navigate tricky tensions that are rooted in political challenges in Zuckerberg’s day job at Facebook, challenges that will only intensify under Joe Biden. And secondly, the timing of Troncoso’s departure raises the possibility that he could be in line for a senior position staffing with Harris, which would serve as another possible link between the Biden administration and Zuckerberg, who is facing antitrust scrutiny and a skeptical public.
Troncoso served as chief counsel to Harris when she was California’s attorney general. He oversaw a major investigation into the state’s banking actions during the financial crisis, one of her landmark accomplishments, and he later co-chaired her transition team when she was elected to the Senate. Harris name-checks Troncoso in her autobiography’s acknowledgments.
Troncoso had recently told people he works with at CZI that he did not currently have plans to join the administration, according to sources, but that no decision had been made. CZI said that Troncoso planned to return to public service and is relocating with his family to the East Coast.
Harris has only unveiled the names of a few of her top aides. The Biden-Harris transition team didn’t return a request for comment.
Troncoso succeeded David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s longtime political adviser, in the role overseeing CZI’s JOI programming. While Troncoso was a lower-profile figure, he oversaw a number of high-profile political projects, such as the $10 million that CZI spent on its ultimately unsuccessful attempt to add billions to California’s budget, CZI’s most expensive electoral play yet. Troncoso originally oversaw CZI’s work on criminal justice reform, and CZI eventually was spending about $40 million a year on that effort, becoming one of the area’s largest philanthropic funders.
He had to navigate making these plays at a time when CZI’s co-founder, Zuckerberg, and the source of its wealth, Facebook, grew to become a greater liability. Some of that antagonism has ricocheted onto Zuckerberg’s philanthropy, even though CZI is entirely distinct from Facebook. Some people who have worked at CZI have alleged that its political work is overly sensitive to what could impact Facebook, and a former JOI employee last month publicly filed a discrimination complaint against the organization, claiming in part that Troncoso’s team did not center racial equity enough in its political programming. CZI has said that it investigated these claims and they are “unsubstantiated.”
Troncoso will be succeeded at least in the interim by Osi Imeokparia, who comes from a more technical background and oversaw the JOI team’s product development.
Like other political advocacy shops, CZI will probably have to rethink some of its programming under a new president and in a new political climate, especially its work on federal immigration reform. CZI recently released an internal report card of sorts on its five-year anniversary this month, which disclosed that it had spent $436 million on its JOI work during that time.
As part of that review, CZI also said it would spend $500 million over the next five years on initiatives focused on racial equity, something that Zuckerberg critics say he has fumbled at Facebook.


vox--2020-12-22--The new UK coronavirus mutations, explained

Health officials in the United Kingdom and around the world are worried about a new , seemingly more contagious variety of SARS-CoV-2 ( the virus that causes Covid-19 ) , which has emerged in the country and was announced over the weekend .
The evidence that this new strain spreads more easily between people is not rock solid , but it ’ s concerning enough to have forced dramatic action .
Nations are already shutting down travel from the United Kingdom , where the new strain , known as B.1.1.7 ( we ’ ll call it the UK variant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is rapidly spreading in the southeastern part of the country .
Within the UK , officials are imposing stricter limits on movement and public spaces .
Right now it doesn ’ t appear as though the new UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous in individuals .
It doesn ’ t seem to make people sicker , nor is it more likely to kill them .
“ I think the key point is that there is no evidence now … that this virus is more pathogenic — creates more problems , more morbidity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Moncef Slaoui , the scientific lead for Operation Warp Speed , said during a Monday press conference .
What it does appear to do , at least based on preliminary evidence , is spread more quickly among people .
That alone is a problem : The coronavirus spreads fast enough as it is .
Compounding concerns is that the UK variant echoes a similar story in South Africa , where a strain called 501.V2 has become the dominant version among new cases of the virus .
Scientists are wondering whether that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The virus has been continually changing its genetics through the course of the pandemic .
That ’ s what RNA-based viruses like SARS-CoV-2 do — they mutate .
Most of the time , the mutations mean nothing .
But this time , something is different .
“ I ’ ve spent a lot of time this year reminding people that mutations are normal , ” molecular epidemiologist Emma Hodcroft , who works on a project called Nextstrain , said .
For the entire pandemic , scientists the world over have been feeding Nextstrain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and her colleagues have been tracking its genetic changes closely .
In the past , mutations haven ’ t warranted big newspaper headlines .
“ I ’ m now finding myself singing a slightly different tune , ” Hodcroft said .
This time , there does seem to be evidence that the new strain is something worth being vigilant about .
“ We probably should consider taking some precautionary measures while we ’ re trying to find out more , ” she added .
At the same time , Covid-19 is surging around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutations .
Scientists are still trying to figure out what these new variants of the coronavirus actually mean for the pandemic .
It ’ s also unclear where else the UK variant may have already spread .
“ The variant could already be in the United States without having been detected , ” the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday .
The good news is that we already know how to respond to these new variants : in the same way we ’ ve been responding to the pandemic overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral-laden breaths in the air .
Mask-wearing , social distancing , and good indoor ventilation are as critical as ever .
There ’ s a lot about this story that ’ s potentially very alarming , or confusing .
And the story is not yet complete , as scientists need more evidence to understand whether these new variants pose a new threat .
To add some clarity , here ’ s what researchers have learned so far .
Let ’ s start with the basics .
Viral mutations .
New strains .
Increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science fiction .
But to demystify things , and to understand why scientists are a little concerned about this new variant — and why most variants don ’ t faze them — it ’ s worth understanding how viruses mutate in the first place .
“ Oftentimes , I think the word mutation in general conjures up a lot of things in people ’ s minds , like , you know , Ninja Turtles or X-Men or cancer , like zombie apocalypse-type stuff , ” Angela Rasmussen , a virologist with Georgetown ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security , said .
“ A mutation is just a lot more mundane than that.
” Viruses mutate because they ’ re constantly making copies of themselves in enormous numbers .
To accomplish this , they have to hijack the hardware of a host cell that they infect .
However , this process can be a bit sloppy .
Within a human body , a virus can replicate itself millions or billions of times , Hodcroft explains .
If you were writing a draft of something millions of times on a computer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make some typos .
That ’ s what ’ s happening with the viruses .
“ They make a typo ” in their genetic code , she says .
One letter of their ribonucleic acid ( RNA ) chain is replaced with another .
Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material , like SARS-CoV-2 , are particularly vulnerable to mutations since the RNA molecule itself is more unstable than DNA .
The process of copying RNA is also more prone to error .
These typos can be very useful for scientists because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are passed down through generations of the virus as it spreads through a community .
Often , scientists can use these subtle changes to trace certain strains ’ lineage and their spread through a population .
The majority of these typos are inconsequential when it comes to human health .
“ One typo , or even a few typos , doesn ’ t usually change how the virus works , ” Hodcroft says .
Some even harm the virus .
“ You ’ re much more likely to break it than to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mutations , she says .
But in rare instances , some mutations can give a virus an advantage , like allowing it to infect cells more readily or spread among people faster .
Those mutant strains can then become dominant within a population .
That might be what we ’ re looking at here with the UK variant ; this new strain may have accumulated typos that could make it more easily transmitted between people .
Four lines of evidence converging on this new mutation being more transmissible So why do scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They don ’ t have this nailed down yet for sure , but four converging streams of evidence are all pointing in the same direction .
“ That ’ s making people feel like maybe there is something here to be worried about , ” Hodcroft says .
“ Each one of these things on their own , I would say is not necessarily convincing.
” But all together , they paint a concerning picture .
One is that in the areas of the UK where this new variant is spreading , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new cases .
“ What this implies is that this new variant is spreading better than other variants that are circulating in the same region , ” she says .
A second is that the increase didn ’ t co-occur with any overly obvious change in human behavior .
“ We don ’ t really have strong evidence that everyone in the southeast [ UK where this variant is spreading ] has just ripped their masks off and is , you know , totally violating restrictions , ” she says .
That said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It could be just that people who happen to have contracted this variant have it are spreading it more often via their behavior .
After all , “ this new variant has emerged at a time of the year when there has traditionally been increased family and social mixing , ” according to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control , which estimated that the transmissibility of the new variant has increased by 70 percent compared to prior versions of the virus .
( Both Rasmussen and Hodcroft say the 70 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overestimate . )
Third , there ’ s some early data about how this variant acts in Covid-19 patients .
“ There may be slightly higher viral loads in patients with the variants , ” Hodcroft says , suggesting the virus has an easier time replicating in the body .
( Viral load refers to the amount of virus in the patient .
Rasmussen also cautions that viral load data is really sensitive to timing and when the patient was sampled in the course of the illness , so there needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , the genetic changes in the UK variant mirror changes in the South African variant , which has also been associated with rising case numbers .
That makes a plausible link : that this particular genetic change may be behind the increased transmissibility in both variants .
However , this is still short of definitive confirmation that the new variant is more transmissible .
According to Slaoui , figuring this out for certain would require laboratory animal testing to see how easily the virus can spread from one organism to another .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the face of that uncertainty , many urge caution .
Again , there ’ s still no evidence this new variant causes more severe disease .
The evidence only points to increased transmissibility .
But a more transmissible virus is still a concern .
“ In general , the more people get infected , the number of hospitalizations and deaths rise accordingly as a proportion of that number , ” Hodcroft says .
“ So more cases is also bad news.
” What does the mutation ... do ?
The UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the genome of the virus .
“ We don ’ t really know what they do , ” Rasmussen says .
Individually , many of these mutations have already been seen in other strains of the virus around the world .
But the combination of these changes in a single virus could be making the new variant more likely to spread .
However , scientists do think that some mutations may be more important than others , and there are several mechanisms by which mutations could make the virus more infectious .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could end up with changes to its spike protein that allow it to enter cells more easily .
2 .
The virus could develop a mechanism to replicate more quickly inside a body , which would lead “ to people becoming infectious faster , or contagious faster than they would with another variant , ” Rasmussen explains .
3 .
The virus could theoretically have evolved an ability to counteract the cell ’ s innate immune defenses , making it easier to infect that cell .
One of the pathways scientists suspect may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutation , where the amino acid asparagine is replaced by the amino acid tyrosine in the 501st position of the viral protein sequence .
It ’ s one of several mutations in the virus ’ s spike protein in the UK variant , but N501Y is in the part of the spike that actually comes into direct contact with human cells .
The same mutation has been found in the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2 that ’ s also quickly spreading .
Since the virus attaching to a host cell is critical to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus ’ s spike protein is especially important — and delicate .
“ If you were just making random changes in the lab , almost any change you make in that area would result in just a dead virus that can no longer get into the cell , ” said Benjamin Neuman , a virologist at Texas A & M University Texarkana .
“ That fact that this thing is able to spread at all tells you that it ’ s at least as good as the original version .
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s a little bit better at grabbing on to host cells , which is the first step of the entry process.
” But this particular N501Y mutation has already been detected in strains that have risen and fallen in other parts of the world over the course of the pandemic .
So it may be that the other mutations coupled with N501Y are having some sort of compounding effect .
And scientists still need to do more work to determine if this is actually what ’ s causing the rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK .
Finding out the answer could help researchers come up with ways to counter this variety of the coronavirus .
How did these coronavirus mutations happen ?
Scientists don ’ t know exactly how the UK variant came to be .
But there may be a clue .
Hodcraft is struck by the sheer number of mutations in the UK variant — 23 in all — which makes her suspect it ’ s possible this variant arose in an immunocompromised person .
“ It ’ s an above-average number of mutations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she explains , the immune system mounts a full-on assault on the virus , eliminating it in a matter of a couple of weeks .
“ In people that have compromised immune systems , though , there ’ s a very different dynamic , ” she says .
“ So , for one thing , the virus could be in them for months instead of weeks.
” That gives the virus more time to evolve , to accumulate mutations that might make it easier to thwart the immune system .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ We may never know exactly what happened here.
” The basic truth : The more this virus spreads , the more chances there are for dangerous new variants to emerge .
In any person — or animal , for that matter — the chance for a dangerous new variant to arise is rare .
But rare things can happen when there are so many cases : more than 77 million confirmed cases worldwide .
Since viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are mutating and since Covid-19 has spread in so many people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time before a certain set of mutations align in a way to give the virus a boost .
What can we do about Covid-19 mutants ?
To stop mutations , quite simply , we need to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in general .
For one , that helps us deal with the pandemic overall .
But “ that ’ s also conveniently how we get fewer emerging variants , ” Rasmussen says .
“ If the virus isn ’ t replicating , it can ’ t mutate .
And if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variants can ’ t emerge.
” We fight the new variant as we would any variant of SARS-CoV-2 : with masks , with social distancing , with good hand hygiene .
“ I don ’ t think people should be panicking , ” Hodcroft says .
“ Lower case numbers , no matter what the variant , are better.
” Scientists have one more tool , though : genetic tracking .
At Nextstrain , Hodcroft and her colleagues receive viral genetic sequences from all over the world to try to paint a real-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how the virus is changing .
But not every place in the world is providing the same amount of data .
The UK does a lot of viral sequencing , for instance .
It was able to pick up on the new viral strain quickly because of that .
In other locations around the globe , that might not have happened so fast .
“ In the US , it ’ s a really spotty picture , ” Hodcroft says when it comes to sequencing .
“ Some states have really invested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
So for some states , we probably have a fair idea of what ’ s going on .
In other states , we really don ’ t have many sequences.
” Overall , the CDC reports that the US has only sequenced 51,000 of the 17 million cases reported here .
That ’ s .07 percent .
In comparison , the UK aims to sequence 10,000 virus per week , and plans to increase that capacity further .
That lack of viral genetic testing creates a big blindspot in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrived here undetected “ given the small fraction of US infections that have been sequenced , ” the CDC states .
More sequencing , overall , would lead to the faster detection of new strains and faster means to contain them if they were deemed problematic .
With new mutations , there is a concern that a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could arise that would be different enough from previous versions such that prior exposures — whether through a vaccine or an infection — won ’ t offer protection .
So , yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus could someday mutate in a way that would elude a vaccine or previous immunity .
Right now , though , scientists think this UK variant would still fall under the same umbrella of protection as earlier strains .
If someone received a Covid-19 vaccine for an older generation of the virus , they would likely have protection against this one .
To explain why , it helps to understand how the immune system deals with viruses .
When the human body detects a hostile foreign entity like a virus , it starts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the virus or to infected cells ) .
Antibodies can then interfere with how the virus works .
They can also flag the virus or virus-infected cells for destruction by other immune cells .
The specific places where the antibodies attach to the virus are called epitopes , and most Covid-19 vaccines target epitopes on the virus ’ s spike protein ( which is what the virus uses to attach to human cells and enter them ) .
“ The good thing with the vaccine is that it induces an immune response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the spike protein , ” Slaoui said .
“ The chances that one set of mutations would alter all those epitopes , I think , are extremely very low .
The expectation , scientifically , is that these kinds of variations are unlikely to escape fully the protective response by the vaccine.
” More good news : Scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch have announced ( via a tweet ) preliminary evidence that antibodies that neutralize the more common strain of the virus also neutralize a strain with the N501Y @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the virus that comes into direct contact with human cells , as mentioned above ) .
That suggests that an immune system primed — by a natural infection , at least — to fight the old variant can also fight one with this specific mutation .
Texas A & M ’ s Neuman noted that there ’ s also evidence right now showing how well vaccines can protect against mutated forms of the virus in clinical trials .
Many of the vaccines being administered were engineered to counter the earliest generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be highly effective against Covid-19 caused by more recent versions of the virus .
“ All the tests are being done , all the papers being published , are being done with current strains , which have several mutations relative to [ the first iterations of the virus ] , and it does still seem to be working , ” Neuman said .
Covid-19 vaccine developers say they are keeping a close eye on these changes and testing to make sure their vaccines are still effective .
“ In terms of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monitoring SARS-CoV-2 sequence changes and the companies are working to generate data on how well serum from people immunized with [ the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine ] may be able to neutralize the new strain , ” said a Pfizer spokesperson via email .
And the new Covid-19 vaccines are well-equipped to adapt .
The two that have received emergency use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration — the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine — both use mRNA as their platform .
These vaccines deliver the instructions for making the spike protein of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cells then manufacture the component themselves , allowing the immune system to use it to prepare for an infection .
One huge advantage of this approach is that the mRNA sequence can be altered quickly ; the first such vaccines for Covid-19 were developed within days after the genetic sequence of the virus was posted online .
Could manufacturers like Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech then retool their vaccines to target the new variants without going through the whole tedious clinical trial process again ?
Possibly , according to Jesse Goodman , a former chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of medicine at Georgetown University .
He told Vox that vaccines for new variants of the influenza virus are approved every year without large-scale trials .
New versions of a Covid-19 vaccine to accommodate mutations similarly might not need another round of study in tens of thousands of people , but may require some testing to figure out dosing and immune response .
With such a new virus and brand new vaccines , the regulations for these situations have not yet been laid out .
Should we expect more mutations in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are unlikely to be the last to make headlines .
Coronavirus is constantly evolving .
We should expect it to keep changing slightly .
“ There will be new variants that emerge , ” Rasmussen says .
The thing is , with each new significant strain , scientists will have to do careful work to determine whether it ’ s more dangerous .
And there are some mutations we can perhaps even expect — if not in the coming weeks , over the next several years .
Recently , virology researchers at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preprint ( i.e.
, not yet peer-reviewed ) study , looking at how a coronavirus that causes the common cold evolved from the 1980s onward .
To accomplish that , they got old blood samples , which included antibodies that cling to this particular virus .
They also reconstructed pieces of the cold virus from other eras .
Basically , they wanted to see if older blood could still neutralize newer virus .
If it couldn ’ t , that would indicate the virus has evolved over time to evade the immune system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found : “ This other human coronavirus does indeed evolve over the course of multiple years to gradually escape human immunity , ” Jesse Bloom , a virologist who co-authored the study , says .
“ So we think this suggests that there ’ s the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to do the same thing.
” But Bloom stresses that this process takes years .
It ’ s enough time to prepare , to monitor , and to potentially tweak vaccine formulations to keep up with the virus ’ s evolution .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into an entirely different beast .
“ It can mutate to maybe escape antibodies , ” Rachel Eguia , the study ’ s lead author , says .
But it can ’ t change so much that it alters its own ability to enter cells .
Scientists are also keeping their eyes out for a rapid , major mutation event known as recombination .
That ’ s where an individual is infected with two different strains of the virus at the same time , allowing the virus strains to swap parts .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that targeted their predecessors .
Some researchers think that recombination might be how SARS-CoV-2 originated in the first place .
“ This is all hypothetical in this particular virus , but it happens in other viruses all the time , ” Neuman said .
Faced with these looming challenges , reducing the transmission of the coronavirus in general is still the best way to protect the fragile progress made in the Covid-19 pandemic so far .
Reducing transmissions is also one of the best ways to make sure powerful tools like vaccines remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that multiple Covid-19 vaccines are coming out is not a cause for complacency , and these new variants of SARS-CoV-2 highlight how important it is to remain vigilant .

A new, seemingly more contagious variety of SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — that has been spreading rapidly in the United Kingdom has now been found in the United States in at least two locations.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced December 30 that the new strain, known as B.1.1.7 (we’ll call it the UK variant, for simplicity’s sake), was detected in the southern part of the state. It’s the second report of the UK variant in the US in as many days, following news that the variant was found in a male Colorado National Guard member in his 20s with no history of travel, a sign that the virus is spreading locally.
“There is a lot we don’t know about this COVID-19 variant, but scientists in the United Kingdom are warning the world that it is significantly more contagious,” said Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, in a statement.
The evidence that this new strain spreads more easily between people is not rock solid, but it’s concerning enough to have forced dramatic action, like shutting down travel from the United Kingdom earlier this month. But it wasn’t enough: The variant has now been detected in Canada, Spain, Sweden, France, and Italy, among others.
At the moment, it doesn’t appear as though the new UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 is more dangerous in individuals. It doesn’t seem to make people sicker, nor is it more likely to kill them. “I think the key point is that there is no evidence now … that this virus is more pathogenic — creates more problems, more morbidity and mortality — than the previous virus,” Moncef Slaoui, the scientific lead for Operation Warp Speed, said during a December 21 press conference.
What it does appear to do, at least based on preliminary evidence, is spread more quickly among people. That alone is a problem: The coronavirus spreads fast enough as it is. Compounding concerns is that the UK variant echoes a similar story in South Africa, where a strain called 501.V2 has become the dominant version among new cases of the virus. Scientists are wondering whether that strain is more transmissible, too.
The virus has been continually changing its genetics through the course of the pandemic. That’s what RNA-based viruses like SARS-CoV-2 do — they mutate. Most of the time, the mutations mean nothing. But this time, something is different.
“I’ve spent a lot of time this year reminding people that mutations are normal,” molecular epidemiologist Emma Hodcroft, who works on a project called Nextstrain, said. For the entire pandemic, scientists around the world have been collecting genetic information about SARS-CoV-2 in a public database called GISAID. Hodcroft and her colleagues at Nextstrain draw on this database to closely track genetic changes in the virus.
In the past, mutations haven’t warranted big newspaper headlines. “I’m now finding myself singing a slightly different tune,” Hodcroft said. This time, there does seem to be evidence that the new strain is something worth being vigilant about. “We probably should consider taking some precautionary measures while we’re trying to find out more,” she added.
At the same time, Covid-19 is surging around the world, even without these new mutations. Scientists are still trying to figure out what these new variants of the coronavirus actually mean for the pandemic. It’s also unclear where else the UK variant may have already spread, aside from the countries where it has been detected. While it was reported in the US only this week, it could have been in the country for much longer. “The variant could already be in the United States without having been detected,” the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported December 22.
The good news is that we already know how to respond to these new variants: in the same way we’ve been responding to the pandemic overall. The virus still transmits primarily through viral-laden breaths in the air. Mask-wearing, social distancing, and good indoor ventilation are as critical as ever.
There’s a lot about this story that’s potentially very alarming or confusing. And the story is not yet complete, as scientists need more evidence to understand whether these new variants pose a new threat.
To add some clarity, here’s what researchers have learned so far. Let’s start with the basics.
Viral mutations, explained
Viral mutations. New strains. Increased transmission. It all sounds like scary science fiction. But to demystify things, and to understand why scientists are a little concerned about this new variant — and why most variants don’t faze them — it’s worth understanding how viruses mutate in the first place.
“Oftentimes, I think the word mutation in general conjures up a lot of things in people’s minds, like, you know, Ninja Turtles or X-Men or cancer, like zombie apocalypse-type stuff,” Angela Rasmussen, a virologist with Georgetown’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, said. “A mutation is just a lot more mundane than that.”
Viruses mutate because they’re constantly making copies of themselves in enormous numbers. To accomplish this, they have to hijack the hardware of a host cell that they infect. However, this process can be a bit sloppy.
Within a human body, a virus can replicate itself millions or billions of times, Hodcroft explains. If you were writing a draft of something millions of times on a computer, extremely quickly, you’d probably make some typos. That’s what’s happening with the viruses. “They make a typo” in their genetic code, she says. One letter of their ribonucleic acid (RNA) chain is replaced with another.
Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material, like SARS-CoV-2, are particularly vulnerable to mutations since the RNA molecule itself is more unstable than DNA. The process of copying RNA is also more prone to error.
These typos can be very useful for scientists because they happen at a regular rate, and are passed down through generations of the virus as it spreads through a community. Often, scientists can use these subtle changes to trace certain strains’ lineage and their spread through a population.
The majority of these typos are inconsequential when it comes to human health. “One typo, or even a few typos, doesn’t usually change how the virus works,” Hodcroft says. Some even harm the virus. “You’re much more likely to break it than to make it better” when it comes to mutations, she says.
But in rare instances, some mutations can give a virus an advantage, like allowing it to infect cells more readily or spread among people faster. Those mutant strains can then become dominant within a population.
That might be what we’re looking at here with the UK variant; this new strain may have accumulated typos that could make it more easily transmitted between people.
Four lines of evidence converging on this new mutation being more transmissible
So why do scientists think this variant is more transmissible?
They don’t have this nailed down yet for sure, but four converging streams of evidence are all pointing in the same direction. “That’s making people feel like maybe there is something here to be worried about,” Hodcroft says. “Each one of these things on their own, I would say is not necessarily convincing.” But all together, they paint a concerning picture.
One is that in the areas of the UK where this new variant is spreading, it is accounting for a larger proportion of new cases. “What this implies is that this new variant is spreading better than other variants that are circulating in the same region,” she says.
National testing data shows increased prevalence of the variant in positive cases over time. This is detected incidentally by the commonly used 3-gene PCR test because 69-70del leads to a negative signal. But this does not effect the results of the test. 7/
h/t @The_Soup_Dragon pic.twitter.com/aPpAjjb35W — Muge Cevik (@mugecevik) December 21, 2020
A second is that the increase didn’t co-occur with any overly obvious change in human behavior. “We don’t really have strong evidence that everyone in the southeast [UK where this variant is spreading] has just ripped their masks off and is, you know, totally violating restrictions,” she says. That said, it could be a coincidence. It could be just that people who happen to have contracted this variant have it are spreading it more often via their behavior.
After all, “this new variant has emerged at a time of the year when there has traditionally been increased family and social mixing,” according to the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control, which estimated that the transmissibility of the new variant has increased by 70 percent compared to prior versions of the virus. Both Rasmussen and Hodcroft say the 70 percent more transmissible figure is most likely an overestimate. A recent, not yet peer-reviewed study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine used a mathematical model to estimate that the new strain may be 56 percent more infectious.
Third, there’s some early data about how this variant acts in Covid-19 patients. “There may be slightly higher viral loads in patients with the variants,” Hodcroft says, suggesting the virus has an easier time replicating in the body. (Viral load refers to the amount of virus in the patient. Rasmussen also cautions that viral load data is really sensitive to timing and when the patient was sampled in the course of the illness, so there needs to be more data to confirm this.)
Finally, the genetic changes in the UK variant mirror changes in the South African variant, which has also been associated with rising case numbers. That makes a plausible link: that this particular genetic change may be behind the increased transmissibility in both variants.
However, this is still short of definitive confirmation that the new variant is more transmissible.
According to Slaoui, figuring this out for certain would require laboratory animal testing to see how easily the virus can spread from one organism to another. But this testing can take several weeks.
In the face of that uncertainty, many urge caution.
Again, there’s still no evidence this new variant causes more severe disease. The evidence points only to increased transmissibility. But a more transmissible virus is still a concern. “In general, the more people get infected, the number of hospitalizations and deaths rise accordingly as a proportion of that number,” Hodcroft says. “So more cases is also bad news.”
What does the mutation ... do?
The UK variant of SARS-CoV-2 actually contains 23 mutations in the genome of the virus. “We don’t really know what they do,” Rasmussen says. Individually, many of these mutations have already been seen in other strains of the virus around the world. But the combination of these changes in a single virus could be making the new variant more likely to spread.
However, scientists do think that some mutations may be more important than others, and there are several mechanisms by which mutations could make the virus more infectious. Those include:
1. The virus could end up with changes to its spike protein that allow it to enter cells more easily.
2. The virus could develop a mechanism to replicate more quickly inside a body, which would lead “to people becoming infectious faster, or contagious faster than they would with another variant,” Rasmussen explains.
3. The virus could theoretically have evolved an ability to counteract the cell’s innate immune defenses, making it easier to infect that cell.
One of the pathways scientists suspect may be at work stems from the N501Y mutation, where the amino acid asparagine is replaced by the amino acid tyrosine in the 501st position of the viral protein sequence. It’s one of several mutations in the virus’s spike protein in the UK variant, but N501Y is in the part of the spike that actually comes into direct contact with human cells. The same mutation has been found in the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2 that’s also quickly spreading.
Since the virus attaching to a host cell is critical to the virus’s reproduction, the virus’s spike protein is especially important — and delicate.
“If you were just making random changes in the lab, almost any change you make in that area would result in just a dead virus that can no longer get into the cell,” said Benjamin Neuman, a virologist at Texas A&M University Texarkana. “That fact that this thing is able to spread at all tells you that it’s at least as good as the original version. The fact that it’s spreading faster may indicate that it’s a little bit better at grabbing on to host cells, which is the first step of the entry process.”
But this particular N501Y mutation has already been detected in strains that have risen and fallen in other parts of the world over the course of the pandemic. So it may be that the other mutations coupled with N501Y are having some sort of compounding effect. And scientists still need to do more work to determine if this is actually what’s causing the rise of the new SARS-CoV-2 variant in the UK. Finding out the answer could help researchers come up with ways to counter this variety of the coronavirus.
How did these coronavirus mutations happen?
Scientists don’t know exactly how the UK variant came to be. But there may be a clue. Hodcroft is struck by the sheer number of mutations in the UK variant — 23 in all — which makes her suspect it’s possible this variant arose in an immunocompromised person. “It’s an above-average number of mutations,” she says.
In most people, she explains, the immune system mounts a full-on assault on the virus, eliminating it in a matter of a couple of weeks. “In people that have compromised immune systems, though, there’s a very different dynamic,” she says. “So, for one thing, the virus could be in them for months instead of weeks.” That gives the virus more time to evolve, to accumulate mutations that might make it easier to thwart the immune system.
“It’s one scenario,” she says. “We may never know exactly what happened here.”
The basic truth: The more this virus spreads, the more chances there are for dangerous new variants to emerge. In any person — or animal, for that matter — the chance for a dangerous new variant to arise is rare. But rare things can happen when there are so many cases: more than 80 million confirmed cases worldwide.
Since viruses like SARS-CoV-2 are mutating and since Covid-19 has spread in so many people, it’s theoretically only a matter of time before a certain set of mutations align in a way to give the virus a boost.
What can we do about Covid-19 mutants?
To stop mutations, quite simply, we need to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in general. For one, that helps us deal with the pandemic overall. But “that’s also conveniently how we get fewer emerging variants,” Rasmussen says. “If the virus isn’t replicating, it can’t mutate. And if it can’t mutate, the new variants can’t emerge.”
We fight the new variant as we would any variant of SARS-CoV-2: with masks, with social distancing, with good hand hygiene. “I don’t think people should be panicking,” Hodcroft says. “Lower case numbers, no matter what the variant, are better.”
It’s already been said but if we actually follow protocol and have policies that support those protocols a new variant that is more transmissible would be combatted just as an older variant. So like worry less about mutants and more about masking and distancing and vaccination. — K. Taylor, Ph.D., M.S. (@KYT_ThatsME) December 21, 2020
Scientists have one more tool, though: genetic tracking. At Nextstrain, Hodcroft and her colleagues receive viral genetic sequences from all over the world to try to paint a real-time picture of transmission chains and keep tabs on how the virus is changing. But not every place in the world is providing the same amount of data.
The UK does a lot of viral sequencing, for instance. It was able to pick up on the new viral strain quickly because of that. In other locations around the globe, that might not have happened so fast.
“In the US, it’s a really spotty picture,” Hodcroft says when it comes to sequencing. “Some states have really invested in sequencing; some states haven’t. So for some states, we probably have a fair idea of what’s going on. In other states, we really don’t have many sequences.”
Overall, the CDC reports that the US has sequenced only 51,000 of the more than 17 million cases reported in the country. That’s 0.07 percent. In comparison, the UK aims to sequence 10,000 virus samples per week, and plans to increase that capacity further. (In addition: The UK sequences the genomes faster than the US, according to infectious disease researcher Trevor Bedford.) That lack of viral genetic testing creates a big blind spot in the US. The UK variant could have already arrived here undetected “given the small fraction of US infections that have been sequenced,” the CDC states.
More sequencing, overall, would lead to the faster detection of new strains and faster means to contain them if they were deemed problematic.
Do mutations mean a Covid-19 vaccine won’t work anymore?
With new mutations, there is a concern that a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could arise that would be different enough from previous versions such that prior exposures — whether through a vaccine or an infection — won’t offer protection. So, yes, it’s possible that the coronavirus could someday mutate in a way that would elude a vaccine or previous immunity.
Right now, though, scientists think this UK variant would still fall under the same umbrella of protection as earlier strains. If someone received a Covid-19 vaccine for an older generation of the virus, they would likely have protection against this one.
To explain why, it helps to understand how the immune system deals with viruses. When the human body detects a hostile foreign entity like a virus, it starts to produce antibodies (proteins that attach to the virus or to infected cells). Antibodies can then interfere with how the virus works. They can also flag the virus or virus-infected cells for destruction by other immune cells.
The specific places where the antibodies attach to the virus are called epitopes, and most Covid-19 vaccines target epitopes on the virus’s spike protein (which is what the virus uses to attach to human cells and enter them).
“The good thing with the vaccine is that it induces an immune response against several epitopes that have been mapped around the spike protein,” Slaoui said. “The chances that one set of mutations would alter all those epitopes, I think, are extremely very low. The expectation, scientifically, is that these kinds of variations are unlikely to escape fully the protective response by the vaccine.”
More good news: Scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch have announced (via a tweet) preliminary evidence that antibodies that neutralize the more common strain of the virus also neutralize a strain with the N501Y mutation (the one that impacts the part of the virus that comes into direct contact with human cells, as mentioned above). That suggests that an immune system primed — by a natural infection, at least — to fight the old variant can also fight one with this specific mutation.
Some good news (and incredibly fast work) on one of the mutations scientists are worried about: N501Y.
In these lab experiments serum from recovered #covid19 patients was just as good at neutralizing virus with the mutation as without it. https://t.co/SIxfo2x3qp — Kai Kupferschmidt (@kakape) December 22, 2020
Texas A&M’s Neuman noted that there’s also evidence right now showing how well vaccines can protect against mutated forms of the virus in clinical trials. Many of the vaccines being administered were engineered to counter the earliest generations of SARS-CoV-2 but are still showing themselves to be highly effective against Covid-19 caused by more recent versions of the virus.
“All the tests are being done, all the papers being published, are being done with current strains, which have several mutations relative to [the first iterations of the virus], and it does still seem to be working,” Neuman said.
Covid-19 vaccine developers say they are keeping a close eye on these changes and testing to make sure their vaccines are still effective. “In terms of the new variant, Pfizer and BioNTech are monitoring SARS-CoV-2 sequence changes and the companies are working to generate data on how well serum from people immunized with [the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine] may be able to neutralize the new strain,” said a Pfizer spokesperson via email.
And the new Covid-19 vaccines are well equipped to adapt. The two that have received emergency use authorizations from the Food and Drug Administration — the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine — both use mRNA as their platform. These vaccines deliver the instructions for making the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 to human cells. Those human cells then manufacture the component themselves, allowing the immune system to use it to prepare for an infection. One huge advantage of this approach is that the mRNA sequence can be altered quickly; the first such vaccines for Covid-19 were developed within days after the genetic sequence of the virus was posted online.
Could manufacturers like Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech then retool their vaccines to target the new variants without going through the whole tedious clinical trial process again?
Possibly, according to Jesse Goodman, a former chief scientist at the FDA and a professor of medicine at Georgetown University. He told Vox that vaccines for new variants of the influenza virus are approved every year without large-scale trials. New versions of a Covid-19 vaccine to accommodate mutations similarly might not need another round of study in tens of thousands of people, but may require some testing to figure out dosing and immune response. With such a new virus and brand new vaccines, the regulations for these situations have not yet been laid out.
Should we expect more mutations in the future?
Short answer: yes.
The UK and South African variants are unlikely to be the last to make headlines. Coronavirus is constantly evolving. We should expect it to keep changing slightly.
“There will be new variants that emerge,” Rasmussen says. The thing is, with each new significant strain, scientists will have to do careful work to determine whether it’s more dangerous.
And there are some mutations we can perhaps even expect — if not in the coming weeks, over the next several years.
Recently, virology researchers at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center published a preprint (i.e., not yet peer-reviewed) study, looking at how a coronavirus that causes the common cold evolved from the 1980s onward. To accomplish that, they got old blood samples, which included antibodies that cling to this particular virus. They also reconstructed pieces of the cold virus from other eras. Basically, they wanted to see if older blood could still neutralize newer virus. If it couldn’t, that would indicate the virus has evolved over time to evade the immune system.
Here’s what the researchers found: “This other human coronavirus does indeed evolve over the course of multiple years to gradually escape human immunity,” Jesse Bloom, a virologist who co-authored the study, says. “So we think this suggests that there’s the potential for SARS-CoV-2 to do the same thing.” But Bloom stresses that this process takes years. It’s enough time to prepare, to monitor, and to potentially tweak vaccine formulations to keep up with the virus’s evolution.
It’s not like the virus can evolve into an entirely different beast. “It can mutate to maybe escape antibodies,” Rachel Eguia, the study’s lead author, says. But it can’t change so much that it alters its ability to enter cells.
Scientists are also keeping their eyes out for a rapid, major mutation event known as recombination. That’s where an individual is infected with two different strains of the virus at the same time, allowing the virus strains to swap parts. These new viruses could then evade the antibodies that targeted their predecessors. Some researchers think that recombination might be how SARS-CoV-2 originated in the first place.
“This is all hypothetical in this particular virus, but it happens in other viruses all the time,” Neuman said.
Faced with these looming challenges, reducing the transmission of the coronavirus in general is still the best way to protect the fragile progress made in the Covid-19 pandemic so far. Reducing transmissions is also one of the best ways to make sure powerful tools like vaccines remain potent for as long as possible. The fact that multiple Covid-19 vaccines are coming out is not a cause for complacency, and these new variants of SARS-CoV-2 highlight how important it is to remain vigilant.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated how Nextstrain gathers data.