Proteins are complex, really complex. The spike protein is about 1000 amino acids long. It is derived from a piece of RNA about 3000 nucleic acids long. Then this things gets folded in a very complicated manner with positive and negative charged amino acids creating sited for bonding with the ACE2 receptor, another complex protein.
Variants have some amino acids replaced and we get positive, negative, or neutral dislocations along with insertions and deletions. Simply, things never look the same. Add to that glycans which may attach to certain amino acids adding more or less charge effects.
Now along comes some academics in the NY Times showing the alleged "simplicity" of the new charges and then adding to that the aerosol element. We have discussed the aerosol issue many times, and it also is very very hard.
The folks in the article did a simulation, based upon what experimental evidence we do not know. We have always said the virus moves in aerosols, aerosols move in a random Brownian motion manner complicated by Stokes lift, gravity, lift, etc. They bounce around each other in this Brownian motion and the overall aerosol cloud is frankly a mess.
But the Times piece is a simulation, apparently without any experimental basis. It is a complex simulation, and of just one aerosol. Nice but no cigar! We must start with real data, measure it, count the aerosols, then try to figure out what leads to the infection. In reality, we still do not know.
The article is cute, very graphic, and took a great deal of effort. However, reality must at some time come to play. Unfortunately, not yet, not here.
The bottom line, we still do not know how the virus is transmitted. It is really hard.
Posts
