[lil_dispaches]

Virulence is not the only parameter. Damage caused by the disease is obviously more important. And in that case Sars-Cov-2 is way overpowered compared to previous coronaviruses.

That virulence (contagiousness) is also evidence though. Yes, an airborne respiratory viruses needs to be more contagious than other types, and a more contagious virus needs to be less deadly, or natural selection is going to do its thing (people die before spreading it). Sars-COV-2 was LESS contagious and more deadly than a typical respiratory virus. That is called evidence.

[ncmncm]

A more-deadly virus ruins its chances only if it kills before it spreads. In this case, where it appears that COVID-19 is contagious for a week before substantial symptoms appear, and a large fraction of those who catch it are not debilitated, ultimate mortality has little effect.

Smallpox was overwhelmingly more deadly, and its spread was not limited, even without airborne transmission. Measles was also overwhelmingly more deadly, did rely on airborne transmission, and afflicted us century in and century out.

Research into viral function, absent military intent, has no reason to experiment with making the infection more deadly. The primary research goal is to discover what may affect virulence, and try to anticipate and understand what may occur naturally, and then discover ways to block those.

[jjeaff]

It's less evidence than you think it is.