There is one, and only one strain of SARS-CoV-2
I&#x27;m not an expert in this field or any related fields. I am, however, in a field where I have to frequently communicate on technical topics to a nontechnical audience. The following is a critique of the technical communication in this article, not of the science.<p>There are some more nuanced claims which are made or hinted at:<p>1. There&#x27;s not adequate evidence to prove a difference in mortality between the L and S variations of the virus.<p>2. There&#x27;s not adequate evidence to prove increased viral transmission over time of the virus.<p>And if your definition of the word &quot;strain&quot; is &quot;reserved only for special changes that confer a new property to the virus&quot;, then both of those would be arguments that there&#x27;s not adequate evidence to prove the existence of different strains of the virus.<p>However, is the definition of the word &quot;strain&quot; really the important point you want to communicate? Either point 1 or 2 could have been made without talking about the word &quot;strain&quot; (note how I sidestepped the whole strain&#x2F;isolate issue by using the word &quot;variation&quot;). I would argue that either of those two points are much more important than the meaning of the word &quot;strain&quot;.<p>Sure, using the proper jargon is a strong indicator of expertise in a field. But jargon arises from expertise, not the other way around. Correcting people&#x27;s jargon before they have the adequate mental framework to differentiate between the terms just creates conflict and is counterproductive.