General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is rabies almost 100 per cent fatal? Why didn't it ever
Evolve to be less fatal? Looks like that would be to a viruss advantage, as opposed to killing every host.
ck4829
(35,094 posts)If you were to survive rabies, you could potentially develop a resistance to it. If an organism dies, well, they can't adapt to it.
Another thought I had: While killing the host is not ideal for a thing like a virus, but it does ensure the virus doesn't have to deal with competition either.
That's just my look at it.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)That's the point. No one survives rabies, without vaccination or in one case I know of, extreme medical intervention.
ck4829
(35,094 posts)Host can't develop immunity and pass that trait on through either horizontal or vertical gene transfer.
Killing the host also ensures other things that use the organism as a host also get wiped out.
Sort of like a biological kamikaze. There are some evolutionary advantages to killing the host as long as that lethality is not as strong as the ability to reproduce and the descendants get to new hosts.
Polybius
(15,514 posts)Even the OP says it, why is rabies almost 100% fatal. 5% or a little less survive.
marybourg
(12,645 posts)since it cant leave one human host for another. Each human host is a dead end anyway. No pun intended.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)It kills all of its hosts of any species.
DenverJared
(457 posts)During a lot of that time, an infected host can transmit it to others. Humans are an accidental host. The virus's "bread and butter" is small mammals - usually bats, rodents and others.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,240 posts)raccoon
(31,130 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)it doesnt matter if it kills the host.
thesquanderer
(11,998 posts)The reason a lot of things are not fatal anymore is because WE (the victims) adapt, not because the attacking organisms do. (And our own adaptations are a combination of natural selection, developing treatments/vaccines, and altering behavior.)
So to get back to the OP, nature/evolution says it's up to us to better resist Rabies, rather than being up to Rabies to become less dangerous to us.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Igel
(35,383 posts)If an organism is short-term lethal, then a mutation develops so one strain takes 2 years to kill instead of 1 day, the less lethal will spread further, it'll be more successful. The short-term lethal may not be rendered extinct (or it may, it's a random thing), but the distribution will certainly change. Some diseases have gone that way.
If as a result of not being as lethal critters develop an immunity, meh. There are species that require the death of the host, often because it's food for the young or it spreads by ingestion, but most are indifferent.
It really is in our interest to become resistant. But since that's also a random mutation that would have to spread, the pin-pricks that rabies causes to the H. sapiens "body" means that mutation would have to be very common, fix the problem all at once, and be dominant. And mutations seldom work that way.
Gad, I hate biology.
Beakybird
(3,334 posts)Arthur_Frain
(1,868 posts)nt
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Disaffected
(4,572 posts)to random mutations. Such a random mutation(s) that would make rabies less fatal apparently has not occured. Maybe it will in future, maybe not.
RobinA
(9,903 posts)hasn't needed to, so there's no advantage to it. It could be out there, but it isn't being selected for.
Grins
(7,248 posts)Came out just a couple years ago. Book review in Washington Post was so wild I just had to read it. Tracks the history and pathology of the disease back to when man tried to domesticate animals for food and labor.
Later chapters dealt with a girl near Milwaukee, WI (late 1970s...?) getting bit by a rabid bat while in church and how she managed to be one of the FEW to survive.
Trying to find my copy as I seem to recall one chapter dealt with animal to human disease transmission.
The descriptions of how the disease killed its hosts were just Ho. Lee. Shit!!! amazing.
On edit: It may be that rabies, unlike other diseases, attacks the brain so it is not human-human transmissible as with a flu or COVID-19. It is always fatal (if not caught EARLY) so developing a natural resistance is not possible.
raccoon
(31,130 posts)Marrah_Goodman
(1,586 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)be less than 100% fatal in other mammalian species, where it would be able to survive to be passed on. Killing our species off is a bug, not a feature.