undefined | Better HN

0 pointssmitherfield8y ago0 comments

The idea is that it kills 99% of them, and then your immune system is up to the task of killing the remaining 1%.

0 comments

But it's not a simple, linear battle.

That most virulent 1% then multiplies and infects systemwide... and adds new mutations all the time.

It's not the most virulent 1%, it's 1% which have unusual mutations that cause them to be resistant to this treatment, but which usually reduce their fitness in other respects. (This can be seen in humans as well, e.g. malaria resistance->sickle-cell). The fastest-multiplying viruses are also (obviously) going to be the most common, in the absence of treatment.

jondubois8y ago

This is really fascinating how being really good at something often correlates with being less good at other things (in this case antibiotic resistance seems to be inversely proportional to the potency of the bacteria).

This is true not just for bacteria but also for other living creatures; for example animals that have lots of children have very short average lifespans.

It makes me think that every living species must be at the absolute cutting edge of its capabilities genetically-speaking.

2 more replies

therein8y ago

Interesting point. I hadn't considered unusual but useful mutations they accrued might come with reduced fitness in other regards.

1 more reply

nebabyte8y ago

the marketing idea?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse