3 ms·
I think we can safely assume that OP was picking a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical example to make a point that it’s possible for something to be deadly and tr
by Closi 8mo ago
I think we can safely assume that OP was picking a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical example to make a point that it’s possible for something to be deadly and transmissible, although in nature Baculovirus in Caterpillars has a similar mechanism (encourages their host to eat a lot, then climb to the top of a plant so when it turns to ooze it infects others) or cordyceps although both of these aren’t as highly transmissible as they hypothetical explode virus.
But the Black Death mixed high contagion and high mortality as an actual example that shows they aren’t mutually exclusive.
- lukan 8mo agoOh, I would never say biological weapons are harmless, but the wiping out humanity claim I debated.
- estearum 8mo agoWhat? That's your second strawman in two comments. Nobody said you claimed they were harmless. People are taking issue with your assertion that biological agents can be either contagious or lethal (not both), and therefore you discount its risk. This implied tradeoff between contagiousness and lethality simply is not enforced by anything in nature. The natural emergence of a pathogen that's both highly contagious and highly lethal would be a much rarer event than the natural emergence of one that's either contagious or lethal, but we're talking about engineered pathogens. There is no reason to think that pathogens cannot be deliberately created that are both of those things.
- hsbauauvhabzb 8mo agoNone of you have seen ‘The Beauty’, I’m guessing.
- lukan 8mo agoNo, but I have learned that sometimes there is a difference between fiction and reality.
- hsbauauvhabzb 8mo agoBet you’re fun at parties.
- wholinator2 8mo agoI do understand your sentiment. But also, this isn't a party