The article raises the possibilities that a mutation makes sars-cov2 more contagious and that immunity might be strain specific. Not only are these unconfirmed hypotheses; they are quite improbable hypotheses.
When trump first started on the hydroxy chloroquine crap, there was preliminary data suggesting that it was possibly an effective treatment. See my comment on it 7 weeks ago:
Researchers releasing preliminary findings on covid is a good thing, but uncritical public reporting of preliminary findings is dangerous. The study of the mutations was done by experts and their improved mutation tracking methods are impressive, but that is irrelevant to whether the proposed hypotheses are true. The LA times reporting of this is only slightly better than trump’s crap. Not only is it an improbable, untested hypothesis. It has the potential to spark public reactions that can cause genuine harm, both in terms of public fear and undermining confidence in scientific research.
