Very first paragraph:
A sample of the virus taken from the worker was 100% lethal in ferrets, though it spread inefficiently and does not appear to be continuing to spread.
A sample of the virus taken from the worker was 100% lethal in ferrets, though it spread inefficiently and does not appear to be continuing to spread.
And the only goal the game really supports is killing everyone, instead of eg going for the largest sustainable population of your organism. (Think more like one of the bugs that cause the common cold, and less like the black death.)
See https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableBreaks...
Ebola kills too quickly for hosts to move around and spread it, but that's in small villages in the jungle. What if there's just enough time for the host to take a crowded train and attend a Presidential campaign rally with tens of thousands of other people before feeling too sick? This might be a better strategy for an ambitious virus in the post-Covid world than a slowly escalating illness that just makes people call in sick and stay home.
too quickly for _human_ hosts to spread it, but maybe that's where multi-species hosts comes into play.
perhaps it lingers nonlethal in some related species?
(like rabies in bats, for example)
Madagaskar staying safe is not good enough IRL.
Reduce, not counteract.
Viruses evolve to spread, not to kill. There just _is_ evolutionary pressure against high lethality.