Wouldn’t benefiting the host of the virus be better for the virus itself instead of destroying its host?
In: 1
>Wouldn’t benefiting the host of the virus be better for the virus itself
No, the only meaningful measure of success for a virus is its ability to propagate itself. That means spreading to as many hosts as possible, which requires making as many copies of itself as possible, and a virus’s means of reproduction—hijacking cellular machinery to make more viruses—is *necessarily* harmful to the host.
> instead of destroying its host
Most viruses we contract don’t destroy us. They temporarily inconvenience us before jumping to another individual.
Latest Answers