[fChk]

2. I can see your point on this; however, look at long term effects over generations. While we're preserving the lives of people unable to fight off serious ailments with their own autoimmune response, we're also reproducing people incapable of fighting off serious ailments with their own autoimmune response. Over time and generations this creates a larger portion of the population entirely dependent on medical science to live - weak, sickly, human beings incapable of taking care of themselves. I believe we, as a species, deserve better. Yes, you saved a life with that antibiotic. Next generation, you will need to save 4 lives... then 16, 64, etc. Until there are so many humans with weak immune systems that the medical industry is overwhelmed trying to save them all ie global pandemic.

Unfortunately I can't subscribe to this simplistic way of thinking on serious biological mechanisms; This way of thinking has some eugenic tendencies that have been tried from mid 19th century Europe (when the Darwinian concept of Evolution by the means of Natural Selection re-flourished) till way into the 50s in the US.

To have a sound reasoning on how biological traits may evolve inside human population one has first to be aware of the underlying genetics that's underlying it, which is always highly complex, in that it includes the interplay of hundreds if not thousands of interacting genes that influence not 1 phenotype but many at the same time... Hence why no serious scientists in the BioSciences fields would ever dare have those kind of thoughts; because he knows the complexities of the mechanisms at work and the foolishness of the mere contemplation of those idea from a scientific standpoint.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the genetics of the Immune system (as is the case of any physiological system taken as a whole) is far too complex to fathom as 1 block let alone to project its evolution over time inside human populations given some arbitrary selection pressure...

4. I 100% agree with this. However, I think the proximity to animal life is the tip of the iceberg not the root of the problem. Farmers have lived near animal life since humans have been farming. It's likely that farmers also pick up microbes from animals. However, farmers typically don't live in crowded urban centers, so overwhelming tranmission isn't likely. The real problem (in my opinion) isn't our proximity to wild animal populations, but our proximity to each other: Our cities have become so crowded that we literally have millions of people stacked on top of each other, enabling 1 person on a bus or a train or at work to infect hundreds or more  in a short period of time. The only viable solution I see to the issue of ever-growing and more frequent/deadly infections is the decentralization of the world's urban centers.

Obviously, there is a misunderstanding given that I wasn't specific enough when I mentioned :

4- If we set aside the various conspiracy theories, the current consensus among the scientific communities concerning the SARS-CoV-2 has to do with the ongoing destruction of natural habitats/ecosystems due to the ever-expansion of Urbanization (as a by-product of the widespread adoption of Capitalism) which put human-beings in close contact with once isolated animal life, hence increasing the chances of zoonosis.

... by which I meant the Wild life that once was isolated in its own remote and inaccessible ecosystem but, because of the deforestation and the ever-expanding effort of the Big Capital at scrambling every bit of resource everywhere it can.. Human-beings and the Wild-life are coming in contact once again in many regions of the World, including Africa, China, Brazil etc.. and when they do zoonosis HAPPEN, think of Ebola epidemics for Africa and The SARS-1 and 2 and may be 3/4/5.. in China etc...

That was the New threat I was talking about in 4.