The "perfect virus"

 Probably the most inaccurate thing I've heard about COVID-19 is that it is somehow a "perfect" virus for infecting humans. And then I read articles like this and I laugh.

The fundamental problem is this; the perfect virus for infecting humans would probably get next to no news coverage at all.

Success in the living world is defined by survival and propagation of the species. And COVID-19 in humans certainly has some interesting tricks up its sleeve from a long incubation period to a method of transmission which favours the kinds of indoor settings humans seem to love.

But, COVID-19 fails in two rather spectacular ways; it kills people, and it interferes with our lives. Even without human intelligence it is easy to see why these are actually horrible traits for a virus to have. And WITH human intelligence it is even worse. 

The general thing about dead humans is this; they tend to stop breathing and expelling viral load while at the same time ceasing to provide a hospitable environment. And, humans whose lives are significantly impacted by the virus also find themselves less upwardly mobile and disease spreading.

While we tend to look at viruses and bacteria as things which want to kill or harm us. This is inaccurate. They couldn't care less. They simply live and reproduce and adapt. Many bacteria and viruses achieve this by aiding their hosts. And others do this at a cost to their host.

And so, as the linked article states, a more virulent but less deadly strain is actually better for the virus AND humans than a more lethal one.

This is why I said that a perfect virus would likely elicit no coverage at all. The ideal impact of a "perfect human virus" would be one which exploits our human behaviour while not impacting it. A virus with no negative impact.

While COVID-19 meets this criteria in early stages of infection, the fact that it later goes on to kill, hospitalize or force sufferers to stay home results in slowing the rate of spread. And, with human intelligence it also elicits a social response and measures to actively eliminate it.

If COVID-19 caused no symptoms and had no inherent health risks but was otherwise identical in how it spreads you can basically guarantee that there would be no response against it, and that we may have even already achieved herd immunity.

Which brings up yet another question. Could we call such a disease perfect? Herd immunity would damage it's survival chances. It would need to adapt and either infect a new species or mutate enough to reinfect to survive. So, the faster herd immunity is reached, the less chance it has to continue living.

The interesting thing is this... if you think about it, humanity is already in the grips of a much more perfect virus than COVID-19; The flu. It isn't perfect either, it still kills people and has prompted a response from humans to attempt to eradicate it. But, the mortality rate is low enough, and it spreads slowly enough to mutate and reinfect. 

In short, it is the "imperfections" of COVID-19 which makes it so dangerous. Not how "perfect" it is. Influenza is much closer to that. Herpes even more so.

Of course, we could always get into a semantic debate about "perfect to what end". But, when we're talking about viruses a good baseline is the ability for the disease to survive and spread. And through that lens COVID-19 isn't particularly highly rated. COVID-19 in it's most deadly strain form will likely be eliminated in 1-2 years. Either through inoculation or, simply because a better version of the disease emerges, infects humans and they develop immunity to the original strain that manner. 

We will probably be dealing with COVID-19 for somewhere between 5 years, up to forever. But, it will only last out into those longer periods if it adapts into something less threatening to human life. And so, it isn't the current strains which will take it that far.