/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11423997
>>11424040
I'm not a professional epidemiologist but this doesn't make any sort of sense to me. It is true that when viruses pass on from an animal to humans for the first time they are especially deadly, but they precisely become less deadly (as this one may well have) because killing people like flies doesn't make viruses spread better outside of really crowded conditions (think about how ebola never made it big outside of endemic areas but the flu and pre-vax era measles have very big R0 since they're not very lethal)

Why would the virus go on to infect 100 million more people by killing them?


The rest of the pasta is "bro I know people and they said it's dangerous and the government is hiding it!" post #8464565 since the epidemic started. If there is a real whistleblower out there, the charlatans have sure drowned his credibility out