The implication of the logic yesterday is: The natural process for selecting a benign virus (to the host, I mean) requires those subjects infected with the benign variant to go around and spread it.
In other words, when we isolate these patients and their recent contacts, we are inadvertently but also inevitably disturbing the natural evolution process of a pathogen - we inhibit the expansion of those host-friendly variants but promote the persistence of virulent strains.
And there would be more from the Pandora Box if you consider from the point of view of that virus: If friendliness to the host is not a survival advantage, which strain would triumph ?
Yes, those virulent ones that could spread more efficiently, probably by methods independent on the mobility of the host - for example, via airborne (rather than droplets), birds, or even some mosquitoes !
(Oh, maybe that's why our senior officials have to clean up the sewage pipes at our backyard.)
Ironically, that's the real threat our senior officials are keen to warn us repeatedly.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
1 comment:
Actually infection of the less virulent strain may not be a bad thing since it may grant partial immunity to the virulent strain that come after.
Post a Comment