5 ms·

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

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.

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.