4 ms·

No it's not. The more a virus spreads, the more it mutates. The more it mutates towards more transmissible and less lethal, the more it spreads. Thus it's a pos

by spurgu 5y ago

No it's not. The more a virus spreads, the more it mutates. The more it mutates towards more transmissible and less lethal, the more it spreads. Thus it's a positive feedback loop. Of course it's not a given though (there could be a more dangerous and more transmissible mutation), but the logic is clear.

jhardy54 5y ago
The global maxima is high transmission and high duration, not necessarily low morbidity. A virus that makes you contagious for two weeks and then kills you is just as transmissible as a virus that makes you contagious for two weeks and then you get better.
- derbOac 5y ago
  ... assuming no reinfection and that the population of infected individuals is always small compared to a reservoir of susceptible individuals.
  - tgv 5y ago
    And assuming no counter measures. The deadlier the virus, the more measures we take. So it's in the virus' interest to become relatively benign.
    - spurgu 5y ago
      This is key. We're not looking at a statically behaving population, but a dynamic one.
    - sjg007 5y ago
      The virus is not conscious.
    - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
      "So it's in the virus' interest to become relatively benign." I don't speak viruscode Maybe those of us who the virus kill the fastest die, the rest develops immunity and transmission stops? All hypothesis
- spurgu 5y ago
  Yes, but the public response will be completely different. We're not looking at a virus in a petri dish here, but one that circulates in a human society. That's what tends to lead the virus towards a less lethal evolution.
  - tigershark 5y ago
    Another logical fallacy here. If the society lets the virus spread more once it has become less lethal it has absolutely no effect on the lethality of the virus because the evolution happens in the past. In the causal world in which we live future actions have absolutely no impact on the present.
    - spurgu 5y ago
      > In the causal world in which we live future actions have absolutely no impact on the present. Of course it doesn't have any impact on the present. Neither did the old apes have any advantage over other animals just because they were gonna evolve into humans in the future. Some of them did however evolve into humans, due to events in the future (none of which were necessarily clear where they happened). Your argument doesn't make any sense. We define the success of the virus. We could nuke all humans on the planet right now and get rid of Covid. Or we could impose strict military lockdown measures forever and get rid of Covid. We don't because of the low perceived threat. The virus mutates by itself (call it "in the past" if you will) but human psychology is the main driver of the success of the virus.
sjg007 5y ago
Not true nor guaranteed. Again your logic is faulty.
daxfohl 5y ago
Yeah the real fun starts when it makes a quick hop in the opposite direction after we've let it spread everywhere. I keep feeling like what we've had so far is just a preview, and there's going to be some new variant that has a younger target demographic.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  Why do you think the virus would all mutate at the same time everywhere? If we let a variant spread, and it mutates in someone there's no system update that will suddenly make the mutation appear in everyone else. It's not a Trojan horse. In reality it would probably just mean that everyone with the earlier less dangerous variant is probably immune or somewhat immune to the new variant if it ever "hops in the opposite direction".
tigershark 5y ago
No that logic is completely wrong because covid-19, and especially Delta, transmits during the asymptomatic phase, so logically there is no inherent advantage in becoming less lethal if the lethality is independent from the transmission. Whoever is asserting that covid-19 WILL become less lethal is simply spreading misinformation.
- spurgu 5y ago
  I clearly wrote: > Of course it's not a given though Plus, if we're still arguing the logic, how exactly does symptomatic/asymptomatic make any kind of difference here? You fail to explain how I'm "completely wrong". Asymptomatic spread is what's made Covid overall so transmissible in the first place, it's not a feature particular to Delta. The recipe for a successful virus is one that spreads easily. Viruses don't have any particular drive to kill (or even hurt) hosts. The less it hurts us the less we give a shit and the more we allow it to spread. Just look at Covid now. If it didn't kill people we would never have put up any measures and everyone would've had it many times over already. But from there if it were to mutate into a variant that starts hurting people, we would start putting measures in place to stop it. Evolution-wise that variant wouldn't do as well as the first one.
sjg007 5y ago
Stop spreading disinformation. You don’t know what you are talking about.

by spurgu 5y ago

jhardy54 5y ago

The global maxima is high transmission and high duration, not necessarily low morbidity. A virus that makes you contagious for two weeks and then kills you is just as transmissible as a virus that makes you contagious for two weeks and then you get better.

derbOac 5y ago
... assuming no reinfection and that the population of infected individuals is always small compared to a reservoir of susceptible individuals.
- tgv 5y ago
  And assuming no counter measures. The deadlier the virus, the more measures we take. So it's in the virus' interest to become relatively benign.
  - spurgu 5y ago
    This is key. We're not looking at a statically behaving population, but a dynamic one.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    The virus is not conscious.
  - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
    "So it's in the virus' interest to become relatively benign." I don't speak viruscode Maybe those of us who the virus kill the fastest die, the rest develops immunity and transmission stops? All hypothesis
spurgu 5y ago
Yes, but the public response will be completely different. We're not looking at a virus in a petri dish here, but one that circulates in a human society. That's what tends to lead the virus towards a less lethal evolution.
- tigershark 5y ago
  Another logical fallacy here. If the society lets the virus spread more once it has become less lethal it has absolutely no effect on the lethality of the virus because the evolution happens in the past. In the causal world in which we live future actions have absolutely no impact on the present.
  - spurgu 5y ago
    > In the causal world in which we live future actions have absolutely no impact on the present. Of course it doesn't have any impact on the present. Neither did the old apes have any advantage over other animals just because they were gonna evolve into humans in the future. Some of them did however evolve into humans, due to events in the future (none of which were necessarily clear where they happened). Your argument doesn't make any sense. We define the success of the virus. We could nuke all humans on the planet right now and get rid of Covid. Or we could impose strict military lockdown measures forever and get rid of Covid. We don't because of the low perceived threat. The virus mutates by itself (call it "in the past" if you will) but human psychology is the main driver of the success of the virus.

sjg007 5y ago

Not true nor guaranteed. Again your logic is faulty.

daxfohl 5y ago

Yeah the real fun starts when it makes a quick hop in the opposite direction after we've let it spread everywhere. I keep feeling like what we've had so far is just a preview, and there's going to be some new variant that has a younger target demographic.

mardifoufs 5y ago
Why do you think the virus would all mutate at the same time everywhere? If we let a variant spread, and it mutates in someone there's no system update that will suddenly make the mutation appear in everyone else. It's not a Trojan horse. In reality it would probably just mean that everyone with the earlier less dangerous variant is probably immune or somewhat immune to the new variant if it ever "hops in the opposite direction".

tigershark 5y ago

No that logic is completely wrong because covid-19, and especially Delta, transmits during the asymptomatic phase, so logically there is no inherent advantage in becoming less lethal if the lethality is independent from the transmission. Whoever is asserting that covid-19 WILL become less lethal is simply spreading misinformation.

spurgu 5y ago
I clearly wrote: > Of course it's not a given though Plus, if we're still arguing the logic, how exactly does symptomatic/asymptomatic make any kind of difference here? You fail to explain how I'm "completely wrong". Asymptomatic spread is what's made Covid overall so transmissible in the first place, it's not a feature particular to Delta. The recipe for a successful virus is one that spreads easily. Viruses don't have any particular drive to kill (or even hurt) hosts. The less it hurts us the less we give a shit and the more we allow it to spread. Just look at Covid now. If it didn't kill people we would never have put up any measures and everyone would've had it many times over already. But from there if it were to mutate into a variant that starts hurting people, we would start putting measures in place to stop it. Evolution-wise that variant wouldn't do as well as the first one.

sjg007 5y ago

Stop spreading disinformation. You don’t know what you are talking about.