6 ms·
Viruses are believed to become less deadly over time when being less deadly offers an evolutionary advantage in ability to spread. If being more deadly and more
by wittyreference 6y ago
Viruses are believed to become less deadly over time when being less deadly offers an evolutionary advantage in ability to spread. If being more deadly and more spreadable have the same mechanism (e.g., avoiding spike protein-inhibiting antibodies), you can expect that old adage not to hold true over the short-term.
- slumdev 6y agoIf anything, this is an argument against lockdowns and masking. Letting asymptomatic and barely-symptomatic people spread more-contagious but less-deadly strains would evolve the virus into a minor nuisance in short order.
- lazide 6y agoNo it won't - it increases the chances for mutations and variants to form, randomly, increasing the odds that one of them will be more deadly AND more infectious.
- tsimionescu 6y agoThat is wildly wrong. As long as the virus is spreading, there are no evolutionary pressures on it to become less deadly.
- foobiekr 6y agoI think this is kind of not representing the reality. _Some_ viruses _have become_ less deadly over time. Not all viruses go through this process and the selection pressure that promotes this kind of evolution is _death._ So we have no reason to believe this will occur with covid19.
- waterhouse 6y ago> the selection pressure that promotes this kind of evolution is _death._ Not necessarily. Assume that people try to self-quarantine as soon as they notice symptoms. (They don't need to be 100% effective at this.) Consider "mutations that affect how quickly it spreads within your body". Those that increase said efficiency would presumably increase the likelihood of death; but they would also probably shorten the "asymptomatic spreading" period, which means they'd get selected against; this selection happens even among those that aren't dying. (Author background disclaimer: No biology beyond 9th grade.)