3 ms·

"Unintended" side-effect yes. But not really avoidable. The very nature of viruses means destruction, competition for resources with other physiological process

"Unintended" side-effect yes. But not really avoidable. The very nature of viruses means destruction, competition for resources with other physiological processes in the host, and they only have a limited capacity to tune their reproduction for optimal transmission. Too little reproduction (and in the wrong places) means too little transmission, too much reproduction means too much damage and thus also less transmission.

dredmorbius 12y ago
It's quite avoidable. The viral load in various ecosystems can be tremendous, and many are generally benign. Even the non-benign generally don't kill their hosts. An interesting tidbit from xkcd's "What If" series: individual cell mortality from viruses in the oceans is about 20% per day. http://what-if.xkcd.com/80/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/80/ http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vyanj/viral_soup_and_the_red_queens_race/ http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vyanj/viral_so... Jared Diamond has offered related observations on pathogens and parasites in tropical vs. temperate climates. It strikes me that an ecosystem in which there are periodic resets (e.g., killing winter frosts, or long summer droughts) offer a more amenable set of living conditions to those species not affected by those resets, whether by adaptation or technology.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  So mostly people are talking about virus which can be actually identified and studied. Up until very recently this was pretty much restricted to those who reproduce massively and leave at least some clues. We know next to nothing about benign virus in eucaryote hosts (or at least I don't). Also, I don't think "benign" virus compete with pathogenic virus for anything. This may seem strange, but unless the organism is completely shutting down, and probably not even then, only an extremely small fraction of cells are infected by any one virus. That's why you still have a nose after surviving the flu. Any competitive mechanisms would have to be more complicated.

dredmorbius 12y ago

It's quite avoidable. The viral load in various ecosystems can be tremendous, and many are generally benign. Even the non-benign generally don't kill their hosts. An interesting tidbit from xkcd's "What If" series: individual cell mortality from viruses in the oceans is about 20% per day. http://what-if.xkcd.com/80/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/80/ http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vyanj/viral_soup_and_the_red_queens_race/ http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vyanj/viral_so... Jared Diamond has offered related observations on pathogens and parasites in tropical vs. temperate climates. It strikes me that an ecosystem in which there are periodic resets (e.g., killing winter frosts, or long summer droughts) offer a more amenable set of living conditions to those species not affected by those resets, whether by adaptation or technology.

bayesianhorse 12y ago
So mostly people are talking about virus which can be actually identified and studied. Up until very recently this was pretty much restricted to those who reproduce massively and leave at least some clues. We know next to nothing about benign virus in eucaryote hosts (or at least I don't). Also, I don't think "benign" virus compete with pathogenic virus for anything. This may seem strange, but unless the organism is completely shutting down, and probably not even then, only an extremely small fraction of cells are infected by any one virus. That's why you still have a nose after surviving the flu. Any competitive mechanisms would have to be more complicated.