Again: Viruses do not necessarily evolve to be milder—especially if they transmit early, like this one. Our immune system learning about it—via vaccines or infection—can mean better response next time, so milder experience. Not same as virus becoming intrinsically less virulent.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1465075561236250631 …
-
Show this thread
-
Selection is on transmission: viruses becoming more transmissible makes sense! People may be thinking more transmission via milder disease because host moves around more? But virus could still kill the host, eventually, or transmit early, as this one, without dampening spread.
6 replies 24 retweets 149 likesShow this thread -
Evolution is not a teleological process, bad match for a story-telling species' brain. Things seem to make sense—the just-so story—but we must go back to the mechanism. What's being selected for? How? FWIW, I don't think we have clarity on Omicron's intrinsic virulence, yet.
3 replies 28 retweets 220 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Prinz-Midas
No, this doesn't make sense. There is no intrinsic trade-off mechanism between the two, and situations where both can and do go up, like Delta. And the virus doesn't "care" if it eventually kills its host as long as it is spreading.https://twitter.com/PrinzMidas/status/1468228080024137737 …
zeynep tufekci added,
14 replies 42 retweets 266 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
I feel like you’re missing nuance here. ON AVERAGE increasing lethality would reduce transmission, all else being equal. But that is not to say there is *always* evolutionary pressure to become less lethal either.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Not if lethality follows the transmission period, as it does in this case.
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.