81–86 of 86 posts
Mutations that delay death, make the virus lighter (more easily aerosolized), or kill a smaller percent of the infected (letting some people be infectious or even asymptomatic), might make the virus less deadly for individuals, but more deadly overall.
All the mutations are happening simultaneously in a population. Ones that cause the virus to spread better will be conserved precisely because those viruses spread better.
I'm tempted to flag this for sensationalist, overly dumbed down presentation of ordinary biology of viruses, but okay evidently some people found it valuable. As I remember it, the author's novel "The Hot Zone" (1994) was better writing and far better science around Ebola and other filoviruses.
Better writing, maybe, but the actual science in that book was a little sketchy. https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-the-hot-zone-created-the-worst-m...
But what Tara C. Smith presents in that Gizmodo post is hardly devastating criticism. As she notes, Preston recognized that it was a a dramatized description of the symptoms, and I don't see that it's "utterly wrong" for a bad case, though I'm sure it's frustrating as an epidemiology professor to repeatedly have people believe it's the only case.
As I recall it the Reston strain is never described as definitely airborne, and an airborne Zaire strain is never mentioned except as a horrifying possibility if one should acquire the ability (not entirely out of character in a fictional thriller one might think).
The criticism for some sort of feminism-deficiency I don't give much for even today, but it seems particularly unfair against a novel which was written decades before today's charged ideological climate on that matter, and I disagree that poor work-life balance and dysfunctional relationships is particularly unrealistic when it comes to career scientists.
Remains then relatively low infectivity, but I think Preston might be forgiven for not emphasizing that in work of fiction built around the fear of Ebola infection.
Thanks for the remark anyway, because it bears noting that the novel should still not be taken to be a biology textbook.
Tangential, but if a virus's contagion is regulated by its virulence (that is, very deadly viruses are less contagious because they kill their hosts) does that mean widespread access to modern medicine could remove the upper bound on virulence by keeping the hosts alive? I could probably formulate this question better, but the basic question is, "could virus's symptoms be getting worse in general?"
It's not just virulence-it's a bit more complicated. Example HIV is (without current chronically given drugs) very deadly. One of the things that makes it so successful is the lag between transmission to and death of a patient. The virus being transmissible for subsequent spread during that time, which could often be a decade even back before modern treatments (80's or 90's).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just virulence-it's a bit more complicated. Example HIV is (without current chronically given drugs) very deadly. One of the things that makes it so successful is the lag between transmission to and death of a patient. The virus being transmissible for subsequent spread during that time, which could often be a decade even back before modern treatments (80's or 90's).
makes me wonder if there are viruses that improve lifespan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just virulence-it's a bit more complicated. Example HIV is (without current chronically given drugs) very deadly. One of the things that makes it so successful is the lag between transmission to and death of a patient. The virus being transmissible for subsequent spread during that time, which could often be a decade even back before modern treatments (80's or 90's).
makes me wonder if there are viruses that improve lifespan.
In all of science as we know it, there is no such thing as proof. Proof is the domain of mathematics and logic.