This thing is mutating and I am sad to say it seems to be doing so fast.

[link to nextstrain.org (secure)]

Not a virologist but just looking at the drift of this virus is pretty damn crazy... I can only imagine what a full, up to date of every every case, data set would look like.

Granted this looks bad a full dataset could confirm, make it worse, or make it look better...

Though on the limited set and limited time this is, as bad as it sounds, pretty impressive. It looks like it is drifting much much faster than the regular flu... What it does in months it takes the flu years to do. (On surface value mutations; I have not looked into the specifics impacts of the mutations just the number)

So yes as bad as it sounds it could be possible that there is a type b already; but a full data set would be needed in my opinion.

China is not releasing much of anything. I want to point one very odd thing out a few days ago in the WHO press briefing the first question asked was it true that Australia was able to isolate the LIVE virus from a patient...

I believe there is going to be a pretty big difference live sample vs the synthetic created virus.

The fact that it is not being released by china should be telling... for a PCR test it is preferable to have a live virus vs synthesized... the same applies for other detection techniques... That bothers me when looking at the big picture... you have to scratch your head and wonder why not share the live virus with the world so you can actually try to get ahead of this thing.

On a different note the PCR test is a RNA amplification test that is looking for markers of the virus in blood. We are talking potential to pick up in the early stages of infection BUT is not fully accurate, that is by design of the test. The CDC test coming back as undetermined, in my opinion, means they have the virus. The test is designed to amplify the RNA in the blood so if 2 of 3 markers pop positive it will come back as indetermined... It simply means we are seeing two out of three strange things when there should be none...

I encourage those interested to look into PCR testing to understand the imporatnce of not only a live virus but also the accuracy. A good example is HIV... if after all of these years it takes that long for a PCR for HIV to show... Why the F do we think overnight we can detect it the minute some one is sneazed on. It test is about about the viral replication and amount in your blood... this is after infection but before antibodies are built.

Which poses the somewhat scarier question... how long after the infection will antibody tests actually be visable. In HIV 97% will produce antibodies in three weeks... this virus who knows? If you cannot detect it with an PCR-RNA test in two weeks... then we still don't understand this at all OR the rna sequencing was wrong (remember this was based on the synthetic virus China released; and Australia isolated the live virus... then the CDC came out and said the test kits were bad...)

All of this is just food for thought. Sorry lots of words but I think it will help address a lot of things going on as well as help to explain a lot of the 'testing' outrage.

Apologize for grammar and spelling this is just one typed out thought no review.