Here we go again. [And the answer? No]. https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/is-ebola-evolving-into-a-more-deadly-virus …pic.twitter.com/abJ5vD2hAN
Deze collectie tonen
-
Deze Tweet is niet beschikbaar.
If you want to really stretch the definition, sure. However, we have no reason to believe that's happening either - it's a very common mis-interpretation/understanding of the A82V studies.
-
-
There's of course a MUCH longer answer to my short 'No', but I'll have to save that for the pub. Key thing is, almost always when outbreaks are more 'deadly', 'severe', 'extensive', etc., it has to do with epidemiology, not biology. It's true in DRC and it was true in W. Africa.
-
So a *good* question to ask instead would be: "Are Ebola *outbreaks* becoming more deadly/frequent/bigger"? This shifts the focus from the virus itself (biology) to the outbreaks.
- Nog 2 antwoorden
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
Deze Tweet is niet beschikbaar.
-
Sure - I agree it can be a useful shorthand - if we had reason to believe it was true. We do not. [again, if he was talking about outbreaks and not the virus itself, I might have been more forgiving].
Einde van gesprek
-
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.