Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Northwestern Argentina.

Studies about the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 lineages in different backgrounds such as naive populations are still scarce, especially from South America. This work aimed to study the introduction and diversification pattern of SARS-CoV-2 during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Northwestern Argentina (NWA) region and to analyze the evolutionary dynamics of the main lineages found. In this study, we analyzed a total of 260 SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequences from Argentina, belonging to the Provinces of Jujuy, Salta, and Tucumán, from March 31st, 2020, to May 22nd, 2021, which covered the full first wave and the early second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina. In the first wave, eight lineages were identified: B.1.499 (76.9%), followed by N.5 (10.2%), B.1.1.274 (3.7%), B.1.1.348 (3.7%), B.1 (2.8%), B.1.600 (0.9%), B.1.1.33 (0.9%) and N.3 (0.9%). During the early second wave, the first-wave lineages were displaced by the introduction of variants of concern (VOC) (Alpha, Gamma), or variants of interest (VOI) (Lambda, Zeta, Epsilon) and other lineages with more limited distribution. Phylodynamic analyses of the B.1.499 and N.5, the two most prevalent lineages in the NWA, revealed that the rate of evolution of lineage N.5 (7.9 × 10-4 substitutions per site per year, s/s/y) was a ∼40% faster than that of lineage B.1.499 (5.6 × 10-4 s/s/y), although both are in the same order of magnitude than other non-VOC lineages. No mutations associated with a biological characteristic of importance were observed as signatures markers of the phylogenetic groups established in Northwestern Argentina, however, single sequences in non-VOC lineages did present mutations of biological importance or associated with VOCs as sporadic events, showing that many of these mutations could emerge from circulation in the general population. This study contributed to the knowledge about the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in a pre-vaccination and without post-exposure immunization period.

Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.

Group-based conflict enacts a severe toll on society, yet the psychological factors governing behavior in group conflicts remain unclear. Past work finds that group members seek to maximize relative differences between their in-group and out-group ("in-group favoritism") and are driven by a desire to benefit in-groups rather than harm out-groups (the "in-group love" hypothesis). This prior research studies how decision-makers approach trade-offs between two net-positive outcomes for their in-group. However, in the real world, group members often face trade-offs between net-negative options, entailing either losses to their group or gains for the opposition. Anecdotally, under such conditions, individuals may avoid supporting their opponents even if this harms their own group, seemingly inconsistent with "in-group love" or a harm minimizing strategy. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, these circumstances have not been investigated. In six pre-registered studies, we find consistent evidence that individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than provide even minimal support to an opposing group across polarized issues (abortion access, political party, gun rights). Strikingly, in an incentive-compatible experiment, individuals preferred to subtract more than three times as much from their own group rather than support an opposing group, despite believing that their in-group is more effective with funds. We find that identity concerns drive preferences in group decision-making, and individuals believe that supporting an opposing group is less value-compatible than harming their own group. Our results hold valuable insights for the psychology of decision-making in intergroup conflict as well as potential interventions for conflict resolution.

Increased generosity under COVID-19 threat.

In the face of crises-wars, pandemics, and natural disasters-both increased selfishness and increased generosity may emerge. In this paper, we study the relationship between the presence of COVID-19 threat and generosity using a four-year longitudinal dataset (N = 696,942) capturing real donations made before and during the pandemic, as well as allocations from a 6-month dictator game study (N = 1003 participants) during the early months of the pandemic. Consistent with the notion of "catastrophe compassion" and contrary to some prior research showing a tendency toward self-interested behavior under threat, individuals across both datasets exhibited greater financial generosity when their county experienced COVID-19 threat. While we find that the presence of threat impacted individual giving, behavior was not sensitive to threat level. Our findings have significant societal implications and advance our understanding of economic and psychological theories of social preferences under threat.

COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study.

How do attitudes toward vaccination change over the course of a public health crisis? We report results from a longitudinal survey of United States residents during six months (March 16 -August 16, 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic. Contrary to past research suggesting that the increased salience of a disease threat should improve attitudes toward vaccines, we observed a decrease in intentions of getting a COVID-19 vaccine when one becomes available. We further found a decline in general vaccine attitudes and intentions of getting the influenza vaccine. Analyses of heterogeneity indicated that this decline is driven by participants who identify as Republicans, who showed a negative trend in vaccine attitudes and intentions, whereas Democrats remained largely stable. Consistent with research on risk perception and behavior, those with less favorable attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccination also perceived the virus to be less threatening. We provide suggestive evidence that differential exposure to media channels and social networks could explain the observed asymmetric polarization between self-identified Democrats and Republicans.

Relevance of HTLV-1 proviral load in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients living in endemic and non-endemic areas of Argentina.

HTLV-1 proviral load (pVL) in peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMCs) is proposed as a marker of disease progression but its role still remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the levels of HTLV-1 pVL in symptomatic patients and asymptomatic HTLV-1 carriers. In this cross-sectional study the pVL was measured by Real Time PCR in 102 asymptomatic carriers and 22 symptomatic patients (5ATLL, 15 TSP and 2 uveitis). We observed that the HTLV-1 pVL was significantly higher in symptomatic patients (median = 4.99 log10 HTLV-1 copies /106 PBMCs) compared to asymptomatic HTLV-1 carriers (median = 4.38 log10 HTLV-1 copies /106 PBMCs; p = 0.0030). A wide variation on the HTLV-1 pVL levels among asymptomatic HTLV-1 carriers was observed with some pVL as high as those observed in symptomatic patients. The asymptomatic HTLV-1 carriers were divided according to the place of birth and the highest levels of pVL were detected among patients from endemics areas from the North of Argentina. Our results reinforce the usefulness of the proviral load would be a prognostic marker of HTLV-1 disease progression. Moreover, host, viral or socio-environmental factors cannot be excluded as determinant of high proviral load.