The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And so a virus evolves to become more transmissible, like that is its major purpose. And in some cases, if it becomes more transmissible, sometimes it can also become more virulent. It can be more, you know, dangerous to its host.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And that is the selective pressure that exists, not virulence. Virulence hitchhikes alongside the transmission aspect of why viruses, you know, mutate basically in the selective pressure that's on them to do that.
from all of my reading and understanding, again, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, to me, I came out of it with the understanding that viruses...the selective pressure on viruses is to evolve to become more transmissible. They are not under a selection pressure to become more virulent.