Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So you assert viruses cannot evolve to be deadlier but at the same time insist they always evolve to become less deadly.

But the only evolutionary imperative is more virus particles. If becoming less deadly is the best path, the virus becomes less deadly. But if increased fatality comes along with making more virus particles, it will get deadlier. But don't take it from me:

"But there’s no obvious evolutionary advantage for SARS-CoV-2 to reduce its virulence, because it pays little price for occasionally killing people: It spreads readily from infected people who are not yet feeling sick, and even from those who may never show symptoms of illness." - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-viruses-ev...

>COVID does not seem to be bouncing between animal hosts

Um.... No...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/wild-us-d...



> >COVID does not seem to be bouncing between animal hosts

You make antibodies to all kinds of things. You likely have antibodies to cat viruses that have no chance of infecting you.

Again, stop the fear mongering.

> they always evolve to become less deadly.

As with any 'rule', there are exceptions, but that is the general idea yes. There is little need to worry about future variants.


35% is the fatality rate of MERS, a related CoronaVirus, and you have presented zero evidence to prove it's impossible SARS-CoV-2 mutate up to that rate. You sound like you're trying to cover up peer-reviewed data suggesting we take this into account. You have also presented no evidence that with increased transmissibility we won't see increased fatality. Put up or shut up.


Viruses don't 'mutate' up to a death rate. They mutate to a low death rate in one host, then sometimes cross, and happen to cause a higher death rate in the new species.

Can Sars cov2 cross to another animal, mutate, and come back to humans with a higher death rate? Certainly, but that's not what we're talking about with these variants.


So you are asserting it is impossible for a virus to increase its fatality rate through mutation within the same species? That there has to be a zoonotic transfer for this to be possible? Where's your evidence? Because this must mean that contrary to the prevailing belief across the scientific community that Spanish Flu did exactly that (1), there must have been 2 Zoonotic events transfer events between the first and second wave.

You're looking at a Nobel Prize here if you're right, take your best shot sport!

1. https://www.livescience.com/1918-flu-variant-deadlier-later-...


I'll just quote what I said above:

> As with any 'rule', there are exceptions, but that is the general idea yes. There is little need to worry about future variants.


According to you. And we should all take you at your word because this is the hill on which you have chosen to die? Got it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: