|
|
|
|
|
by Tloewald
4289 days ago
|
|
The article's point is that it needs several mutations to become airborne and that those mutations have a cost; so unless the benefit of becoming airborne outweighs the cost, it won't happen. Bear in mind that the traditional method of dealing with Ebola was simply to shut down travel in/out of affected settlements until the disease ran its course. This isn't working as well this time for a variety of reasons (I'll guess increased urbanization, better transportation, and problems with public information -- e.g. distrust of governments telling people to do sensible things). What's probably far more likely is that a less lethal mutation will displace it. A disease that kills and kills quickly is maladaptive -- that's why the Ebola reservoir is believed to be bats which can catch it but not suffer ill effects. |
|