- Nov 11, 2019
- 9,555
- 359
- 0
The new coronavirus, like all other viruses, mutates, or undergoes small changes in its genome.
How fast can the coronavirus mutate? : Read more
How fast can the coronavirus mutate? : Read more
Pretty sure I just read total opposite of that today. I think it gets stronger.A virus would more likely to spread after mutating into a less deadly version. If you kill your host you have less opportunity to infect new hosts.
The virus is not trying to kill us. It may look that way from our perspective--but from the virus's perspective, it's just trying to replicate itself as many times as it can. For the virus, getting "stronger" means getting better at spreading, not getting better at killing.Pretty sure I just read total opposite of that today. I think it gets stronger.
lukex5. This is what everybody seems to forget about viruses. A healthy host means a successful environment for the virus to maintain its existence. As this virus is new to Humans it has many weaknesses the principal one being that it is allowing the hosts to infect others before continuing to cause the host to become a fatality. This weakness is why the Wuhan testing and containment methodology may actually work. However, it relies on the asymptomatic carriers to spread the disease and public acceptance of a large number of fatalities
The virus is not trying to kill us. It may look that way from our perspective--but from the virus's perspective, it's just trying to replicate itself as many times as it can. For the virus, getting "stronger" means getting better at spreading, not getting better at killing.
Killing your hosts before you can spread--or making them so sick that they isolate themselves--is a fatal mistake for any virus. That's why SARS didn't take off like this. It was *too* deadly, and as a result it could be contained and stamped out. COVID-19 hits the worst possible balance: It's deadly enough to kill millions, but not so deadly that it burns out its host pool before it can spread.
Absolutely agree. It appears that a number of retroviruses have successfully become part of the human genome, and are expressed in the way we form our placenta compared with other mammals. That's real success for a virus - infecting every single possible host, and being reliably passed on every time!
lukex5. This is what everybody seems to forget about viruses. A healthy host means a successful environment for the virus to maintain its existence. As this virus is new to Humans it has many weaknesses the principal one being that it is allowing the hosts to infect others before continuing to cause the host to become a fatality. This weakness is why the Wuhan testing and containment methodology may actually work. However, it relies on the asymptomatic carriers to spread the disease and public acceptance of a large number of fatalities
That is all well and good for a natural virus. This one is anything but. There have been conflicting reports but clearly there is an effort to keep a lid on the laboratory origins of this. One of the world's best Microbiologists, Montagnier , who received a Nobel prize for the discovery of HIV has stated categorically it is the product of gene editing. There have been plenty of other such reports and the withdrawal of the claims in some cases doesn't change the science, just their courage in speaking about it. It has way too many tricks up its sleeve for a natural virus anyway. Of course, nature tends to eliminate such artificial constructs but in the meantime, it has been 'programmed' to do a job and it seems fairly obvious that is not to give scientists a new fun game to play.The virus is not trying to kill us. It may look that way from our perspective--but from the virus's perspective, it's just trying to replicate itself as many times as it can. For the virus, getting "stronger" means getting better at spreading, not getting better at killing.
Killing your hosts before you can spread--or making them so sick that they isolate themselves--is a fatal mistake for any virus. That's why SARS didn't take off like this. It was *too* deadly, and as a result, it could be contained and stamped out. COVID-19 hits the worst possible balance: It's deadly enough to kill millions, but not so deadly that it burns out its host pool before it can spread.