| ▲ | cogman10 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yeah. HIV is a good example of this. Without treatment, it is deadly pretty much 100% of the time. However, it takes a long time after the shut down of the immune system before a systematic infection takes over and kills you. That allowed for a deadly disease that's somewhat hard to spread (mostly just through sex) to ultimately go on a rampage. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | AbstractH24 an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I never thought about this. So without concern for the humans with HIV* there an argument to be made that treating symptoms without curing made it spread more? *obviously, this is just hypothetical. It’s important to care about the life of those with HIV. No banish them all to something like a leper-colony. Although it explains the logic for those at the time they existed better than a religious one did. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||