Submitted by BlackWardz t3_10oe29j in askscience
The question is a bit hectic but I wasn't sure how to word it properly.
Basically if we consider bacteria and viruses causing illness in humans, are they present for so long only because there was always someone to "pass it on"?
In other words, if we were lucky enough to get to a point where nobody would be infected by smallpox, would that mean the end of smallpox? I know there are of course things like the bacteria being able to survive without a host for some time on contaminated surfaces, etc., but hosts remain their main way of survival, right?
The thought that brought me to this question was whether the wide range of diseases we know today exists because we were never lucky enough for nobody to be infected by that specific bacteria for example.
theskepticalheretic t1_j6hy5pd wrote
Answer to this is complicated and boils down to 'it depends'.
Hypothetically, let's say a disease has been eradicated. Disease X was present in the population, a treatment and preventative measure was developed and this disease does not have reservoirs in other species. It could go extinct. Conversely, this disease may be closely related to another more benign disease. It is eradicated and the closely related but benign disease mutates to replace its cousin.
Overall the battle against a disease is never really over. The goal is containment and then eradication but eradication is likely never permanent or complete.