3 ms·
Ok, instead of some handwaving from economist, I'd rather have Nature [1] with loads of good references and no paywall. My point is that we simply do not know.
by edejong 5y ago
Ok, instead of some handwaving from economist, I'd rather have Nature [1] with loads of good references and no paywall.
My point is that we simply do not know. The word 'usual' is deceptive here. Usual for the viruses we studied? Usual for all viruses? Usual for viruses which recently have made the jump to a new species? We do not know. We simply have no idea.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-018-0055-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-018-0055-5
- nintendo1889 5y agoNature paywall is on scihub. Just copy the doi.org url.
- paulddraper 5y ago> usual > no idea
- edejong 5y agoNo virologist or epidemiologist will say it is 'usual' that viruses tend to mutate to become less virulent. Perhaps, and even that is contentious, an expert could make a claim for a specific type of virus. This type of reasoning is based on an assumption that a pathogen limits its reproductive number by increasing its virulence. It is reasonable to test this hypothesis, but unfortunately we do not have enough data points to make any conclusive statements.