3 ms·
Yes, but there'd be less chance of mutation due to the smaller scale. By having a large concentration of animals in a smaller space (relatively), it's like hitt
by ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
Yes, but there'd be less chance of mutation due to the smaller scale. By having a large concentration of animals in a smaller space (relatively), it's like hitting the fast forward button on evolution/natural selection for viruses. To counter the extra risk, large scale farms should be testing for pathogen/viruses to at least get an early warning for when there's a nasty mutation.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThere can be trillions of virus cells in a single body. That's the mutation environment. Whether there are dozens or thousands of bodies makes little difference in comparison.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y agoIf you consider a single body, the selection pressure is for the virus to multiply as quickly as possible. It's when you get multiple bodies that the selection pressure is more the ability of the virus to be transmitted and infect a new host. It's by concentrating animals/people into smaller environments that we select for the greater transmission of the virus and possibly for it to be less deadly as that gives the virus more time to spread itself. Alternatively, think that a virus in a single organism is likely to be extremely well adapted for spreading within that organism already, but it may not be adaptable to other organisms and thus not be very contagious.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoH5N1 is already extremely good at spreading between birds, getting better at that is not going to increase its fitness. It's the amount of contact between livestock & humans that we primarily care about, and that is a lot larger with a large number of small farms than it is with a small number of large farms.